Mr. Bour [...] Reply.

To which I reply, Certainly you were mistaken, it was not the Ballance of the Sanctuary in which you weighed my lines, for God requireth his people should have just Ballances, and just weights, Levit. 19 36. He would have no other used in his Sanctu­ary; but this was some false Ballance of your own, or you borrowed it of some se­duced Brother, who maketh use of divers weights and false deceitful balla [...]c [...]s (used [Page 4]by too many) both which are abomina­tion to the Lord, Prov. 11.1. and 20.23. Hos. 12, 7. or otherwise you held the scales in a quaking hand, or your eyes were grown so darkned by a prejudicate opinion that you could not see which way the scale went, nor pass a right, but a rash judge­ment upon my lines, or according to the flesh, which our Saviour reproveth, as you may read Joh. 8.15.

And Friends, did you weigh your own lines in the Ballance of the Sanctuary, before you sent them to me? if you had, and had had spiritual eyes to see, and right ordered judgements to discern, certainly you might have found them wanting; yea, so light and weak of any true Scripture-proof, Eph. 4.20, 21. that they can move none (who have learned Christ, and been taught by him as the truth is in Jesus) to separate with you, or to re­fuse our Reformed and Reforming Congre­gations (at least) to hear the Doctrine of the Gospel preached by us, who are the godly, lawful and faithful Ministers of Je­sus Christ.

But let both our lines and writings be weighed in the Ballance of the Sanctuary: My lines I sent to you, begin thus.

Mr. Bourns Reply.

To which I reply first, For the fault you find with me for calling you Anabaptists (though falsely so stiled, as your ignorance writeth) and it seemeth thinketh) had you but so much of that humane learning (which you sentence to be a sandy pillar, and a popish foundation) as to understand a little of the Greek, in which it pleased the Holy Ghost to have the New Testament written by the holy men of God, Ro. 15.4. 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.2 [...]. for our learning, you might have learned the bet­ter [Page 6]to have understood the name that is given you, Anabaptists. For those that have learned by mans teaching, or their own industry, through the blessing of God, any measure of skill in the Greek tongue may tell you, [...] [...] in compositi­one valet [...], rur­sus, G. P. & Lex. & in N.T. that the preposition [...] in Greek when it is in composition, it is as much as rursus in Latin, which in English signifieth agdin; and so an Anabaptist is one that is baptized again: And have not you, or ma­ny of you been baptized again, once in your infancy, and again in your mens estate? And so you are deceived, and de­lude your Disciples to say you are falsly stiled Anabaptists; but bewail your igno­rance that you had no more of humane Learning, that you might have the more easily understood by the help of the holy Spirit that Divine learning which is revealed in the holy Scripture written in the Greek and the Hebrew tongue.

Mr. Bourns Reply.

That it was the desire of the holy Apostle Paul to his Christian Thessalonians, 2 Thess. 3.1, 2. That they would pray for him and Silvanus, and Timothy, not onely that the word of the Lord might have free course and be glorified, but, that they might be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men, for all men have not faith: [...]nd truly that is my desire also, the rather, because I have met [Page 7]with such unreasonable men already, and and have some ground of suspition I may meet with such again; for I believe there are such in the world now, as well as there were in the Apostles days; and if all of your Separation be not such, yet some of you may: There was one Judas amongst the twelve Apostles, whom Christ calls De­vil, Joh. 6.70.

Mr. Bourne Reply.

First, My Reply is, That it was with you John Darker, with whom I would have ar­gued out of the holy Scripture in private, and for that end desired you would call for a Bible, because I hoped if there was not that right spiritual Reason in you to judge of spiritual things spiritually, yet you was capable of right Reason, by the grace of G [...]d, and so by giving you spiritual reasons o [...] of the Book of God, you might be con­vinced of your Error, and be brought by Gods blessing to see the light of Truth re­vealed in the Scripture of Truth for your edification.

And now you proceed and discover an uncharitable and unchristian spirit, A defence of the Scri­ptures printed for John. Wright. 1650. compa­ring me to Popish Dr. Story, as if I cast a­way the Scriptures, when I had sent one of you my Defence of the Scriptures, in my Disputation with James Nayler, which you approved of. And also my greater light from Christ, in which I declare the holy [Page 6] [...] [Page 7] [...] [Page 8]Scriptures to be the most perfect Rule of Faith and Life: A light from Christ leading to Christ; printed for John Wright 1646. And in my paper I now sent you, I desired you would bring your Argu­ments out of the holy Scriptures, there­fore you could not charge me with taking away the Scripture. And your find­ing fault with me and reverend Mr. Baxter, because we bring Reason for proof, as if Scripture-Reason were unlawful, I pass over as not worthy a larger Answer.

I gave you a second Reason, why I was unwilling of a publick Disputation, especi­ally with such as you are; Because com­monly in publike Disputations weak Be­leevers are admitted, unable to discern the strength of Arguments, or mind of the Ho­ly Ghost in Scriptures alledged; and to re­ceive such is contrary to the Apostles di­rection, Rom. 14.1. Him that is weak in the Faith receive, but not to doubtful Dispu­tations. Besides, there are several Disputa­tions in print already enough to satisfie. Yet if you John Darker would write your Arguments drawn out of the holy Scri­ptures to prove what you affirmed yester­day (as I apprehended you) That the godly preaching Ministers in England are all Anti­christian, and our Reformed and Reforming Churches, Babylon, and to be departed from, and our preaching not to be heard, with your hand, and the hand of your cheif Teacher, I should, God willing, give you my Answer; And to this I subscribed my name,

Immanuel B [...]urne.

For your wresting and misrepresenting my words, and opprobrious terms you give me, and false consequences you put upon me, I have learned not to give re­viling speeches for reviling; But I may tell you, That you raise a false position like a man of straw, and then you will father it on me, and fight against me for it, when it is a Bastard of your own begetting: I pardon this also.

Mr. Bourns Reply.

For Reply, These are plain Truths, and full proof without consequence; But these Truths are not in controversie between us: But now you come to shuffle in matters of controversie amongst the rest, like a man that mingles corrupt wares among good, the more easily to sell them, and deceive the [Page 10]people; As it follows in your Answer.

Mr. Bour [...] Reply.

Now I see, friends, you have changed your method, for before your first ground was admission of Infants to be members by baptism of our Churches; And in your four sandy pillars, you put Humane Learning before Infant Baptism. I shall in like man­ner take liberty to change your method, and for my Reply begin first with that which is your third sandy Pillar or popish Foundation (as you may please to term it) and this is our Tythes or forced maintenance which you call the wages of unrighteous­ness; Because it is so much opposed and spo­ken against by too many in these times, who are not onely adversaries to Ministers Main­tenance by Tythes, but to the Ministery it self.

First let us look into the Book of God, even from the Creation; read Genes. ch. 1. & 2. and you shall find, That howsoever the Lord the Creator of heaven and earth, the chief Lord of all the world, did and hath entrusted Adam and Eve, and their sons and daughters, with the keeping and possession of inferior creatures and dominion over them, and with the fruits of the earth and the increase thereof; yet the Lord hath reserved a twofold right yet in the creature. First general over all the world and the kingdoms of the earth, and goods therein, to dispose of them when, and where, and to whom he pleaseth. This the Scripture witnesseth at full: He gave the land of Ca­naan to the seed of Abraham, Gen. 15.18. And Hanna tells us, that the Lord maketh poor and maketh rich, he bringeth low and lifteth up, 1 Sam. 27.8. And the Psalmist tels us, The earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof, Psal. 24.1. So the Psalmist again bringeth in God himself speaking; All the beasts of the forrest are mine, and so are the cattel upon a thousand hills; and if I were hungry, I would not tell thee, for the world is mine and the fulness thereof, as is expressed Psal. 50.10, 12. And the word of the Lord to Jeremiah from the Lord: Thus shall ye say, I have made the heaven and the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it to whomsoever it seemed meet unto me. And now I have given all these lands into the hands of the king of Babylon my [Page 13]servant; as you may find recorded Jer. 27.5, 6. This Daniel declares in the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the high tree in the midst of the earth which was decreed to be cut down: The decree was for bring­ing down Nebuchadnezzar himself, till he did know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. Witness Daniel, ch. 4.25. Thus hath God a general right over all the world and all that is therein

2. Again, God hath a special right in the creature, or part of the creatures and the increase of them, which he reserved for his own proper use and service. And this spe­cial right he hath never given away, but hath his special right still, which he did and hath reserved in all ages of the world for the outward maintenance of his worship and service, and for encouragement and livelihood of his laborers and servants whom he calleth and imployeth in his own work, for his own glory, and the good of his Church and children.

First the Scripture tells us, that although the Lord gave to our first parents the crea­tures upon the earth, with every herb bear­ing seed, and the fruit of the tree yielding fruit for meat, yet he reserved some part for himself for his own service, according to his own will and pleasure. G [...]. 12.16, 20. Of every tree of the garden thou mayest eat freely, saith God to Adam, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat, for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. [Page 14]And wherefore did God forbid Adam upon pain of death to eat of that tree of know­ledge of good and evil? Learned and holy Augustine brings in Adam reasoning with God in this manner: If the tree be good, why may I not touch it? Si bona est, quare non tango? si mala, quare in paradi­so [...] Ideo in paradiso est quia bona est; sed nolo tangas, quia obedi­en em te volo. and if it it be evil, why is it in Paradise [...]? And he answers the question as in Gods stead, It is therefore in Paradise, because it is good; but I will not have thee to touch it, because I would have thee obedient. The Lord would have Adam know, that he had reserved the Royalty to himself; and that although he gave Adam an inheritance in the rest of the earth and the fruits thereof, to hold to him and to his posterity upon their good behaviour, yet he should hold it of him as chief Lord; and to touch any part of what God had reserved for his own service, was no less a sin then Sacrilege it self, and to be punished with death: This was the penalty for the breach of that Divine law, as Adam and all his posterity since have found by sad expe­rience.

Again, this forbidden tree in Paradise was not all the part of the world which God reserved for himself and his service: For if you read Gen. Gen 4.15, &c. 4. you shall find that not only that tree of Knowledge of good and evil planted in Paradise, was Gods re­served part (or rather a part of it,) but part of the increase of Corn and of Sheep also. This is witnessed in those sacrifices and divine services of Cain and Abel: Cain brought of the fruit of the ground, and Abel [Page 15]of the firstlings of his flock and the fat of them. And without controversie, Col. 2.23. this was not a will-worship of their own invention (odi­ous to God) but that which was of Divine institution, and so of Divine authority; As to acknowledge their homage to God the Soveraign Lord of all, so to typifie forth the sacrifice of Christ that seed of the woman, Gen. 2.15. Joh. 1.29. (which God had promised them should break the Serpents head) That Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world. Thus a part of Cain's Corn, fruit of the ground by tillage, and of Abel's increase of his Sheep, was the Lords portion reserved and due to the Lord by Divine right, for the maintenance of that Divine service which God had appointed our first parents, [...] In fine di­erum, in the end of days. Gen. 41.1. A year of days. and those their postetity. And this in process of time, or at the end of days, as the Hebrew word may well be rendred; that is, at the end of the year when they had gathered in the fruits of the earth.

3. The same custom or duty we find con­tinued in after-ages, as well as in that first age of the world Read Gen. 8. Gen. 8.20. and you shall see that Noah, after the Flood, when the waters were abated from off the earth, and Noah and his family with the rest of the creatures went forth of the Ark, he remem­bers God had a part due to him, who had in mercy saved all: Therefore he taketh of every clean beast, and of every clean sowl, and offered up a burnt-offering to the Lord, and the Lord smelled a sweet savor; that is, the Lord accepted of Noah's sacrifice; which [Page 16]he would not have done, if it had been a Will-worship, and not been his own insti­tution; his own Divine Law and appoint­ment as a service due to him (by Divine right) who is Lord of all; for Joh. 4.24. God is a Spirit, and he will be served in spirit and truth, according to his own will, not the will of men.

Fourthly, The Sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japhet and their posterities, by whom the whole earth was peopled, they had so much light even of nature, or of that Law of God given to our first Parents, and to their posterity before, and continued after their fall, as to know that God the great Creator had a part of the Creature and their increase due to him as a yearly chief Rent to he disposed at his own pleasure for his Worship and Service, which even the Gentiles of the Sons of Noah did pay at every years end. It was a custom among the Gentiles, that the antient Sacrifices and Assemblies to that end, were after the gathering in of the Fruits at the years end; witness our learned Country-man Ains­worth in Gen. 4. ex Arist. Ethic. lib. 8. Cum multis aliis, &c. (as some antient Writers do record.)

But you will say, Objection. Though some part might by the Sacrifices of Adams sons, and of Noah's sons seem to be God's, yet what is this to the Tenth or Tythe which the Mi­nisters of England do seek after every one from his Parish where he liveth and preach­eth to the people?

I answer, Answer. First for the posterity of Noah Shem and his off-spring, we find that long before the Levitical Priesthood, or that Levie was born, that what was the special part or the Lords portion, was declared by that great Patriark, and excellent Christi­an, Joh. 8.56. faithful Abraham (called by the A­postle, the Father of the faithful, Rom. 4.11. Gen. 14.18, 19, 20, 21. or of all them that believe, Rom. 4) and this is that memorable action of his recorded Gen. 14.18. When Abraham came from smiting Chedor-Laomar, and the Kings that were with him, Melchisedec, [...] Omnibus dedecima [...] The Tenth of all. Heb. 7.12. who was a Priest of the most high God met him, and brought him bread and wine and blessed him, &c. and he gave him the Tenth of all; the same is repeated by the Apostle to the Hebrews chap. 7. This Melchisedec was King of Sa­lem, Priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings and blessed him, to whom also Abra­ham gave the Tenth of all.

And why the Tenth part, Question. and not the Seventh or Eighth part, or the Twentieth or Thirtieth part? wherefore did Abraham give the Tenth part of all to Melchisedec? Answer. Ʋnde enim homo re [...]um juarum decimam potius quam no­nam vel octavam vel aliam quamque partem offerendam esse scire po­tuisset, nisi à Deo [...]octus suisset? From the beginning men were taught by God to pay Tythes, as Hugo de Sancto victorie Erudii. Theol. de Saer. lib. 1. par. 12. cap. 4.

I answer, Certainly Abraham did know God's will, what was Gods part, either by the Law of Nature, or the positive Law of God taught him from his Ancestors, from the Patriarks, Noah or Shem or some other, [Page 18]or they or their Father had received from Adam, and Adam from God, and therefore Abraham gave to Melchisedec the Priest of the most high God, the Tenth part, and neither more nor less; this was acceptable to God, and this was received of Melchise­dec, as the Lords portion no doubt, and not a will worship of Abraham.

Again, not onely Abraham but Jacob, the Grandchild of Abraham, and Father of Levi (before Levi was born, or that so­lemn gift of Tythes by the Lord to the Tribe of Levi) he followeth the steps of his Grandfather Abraham, and freely de­clares what was and is the Lords part or portion for maintenance of his Service, and Servants in their Ministerial Office. Gen. 28.12, 13, 14, &c. This he doth upon that vision or apparition of Christ to Jacob, in that Dream of the Lad­der, whose top did reach to Heaven, and the Angels of God ascending and descend­ing, Gen. 28. and Jehovah promising bles­sings to Jacob, upon which when he a­waked he was taken with an awful rever­ence of the Maiesty of God and his presence there, and maketh that solemn vow to God, That the Lord should be his God, that he would worship God in that place, and if God should bless him, &c. and give him but bread to eat, and rayment to put on, of all that God should give him, he should give the Tenth to God. This certainly was no rash vow of Jacob, no Wil-worship, nothing but what h [...] did know to be his duty, and that which God would accept: therefore he [Page 19]voweth, not the eight part, nor the twelfth, nor the twentieth, but the Tenth; And of all that thou shalt give me, I will give the Tenth to thee. Thus you have two witnes­ses from the sons of Noah in the posterity of Shem, where the true Religion was chiefly preserved, and the Church planted, and these recorded in the written word of God, the sacred Scriptures; and this be­fore the Levitical Law.

But this is not all, for we finde the same witnessed in the posterity of other the sons of Noah; of which, though many of them lost the true knowledge of the true God, and the right manner of giving all the Ho­nor and Service to God, yet they retained some parts of Worship due to God, which they gave to their false Gods, when they were ignorant of the true God; amongst the rest, that spark of light of the Law of Nature, or of the positive Law of God, which they had taught them by their great Grandfather Noah, or some from him, to pay as a due, the Tenth or Tythe to God.

Thus we read, Dydimus old Gram­marian. That it was a Greek cu­stom to consecrate [...], the Tythes of their abundance to the gods. And Pi­sistratus that Tyrant of Athens writeth to Solon, De Lacr [...] in vita So­lonis. that all the Athenians do separte the Tythe of their fruits, not to be spent for our use (saith he) but for publick sacrifice, Herodot. in Clio. &c. And King Cyrus his Soldiers, by the advise of Craesus, were staid from spoiling the Lydians City, That the Tythes might [Page 20]first be paid to Jupiter. And as among the Greeks, Festus. Decima quae (que) vete­res Diis s [...] ­is offerebant Macr [...]bius, out of Var­ro. Plut [...] [...]ucul so among the Latines, the Antients did use to offer all their [...]ythes to the gods. And another witnesseth that the Antients were wont to give the Tenth to Hercules. And it was a common custom amongst the Romans. It is reported of Lucullus, That he grew rich because he observed the use of paying Tythes to Hercules. Zenoph [...]n wit­nesses that others used to pay Tythes to Apollo. Yea, this custom was not onely used amongst the Civil Nations of the Gentiles, Plin. hist lib. 12. cap. 14.19. but even amongst the ruder also. Plinie writing of the Sabaeans and Aethiopians, saith, That in the Spices, of which those Countries yield abundance, the Merchants may not meddle with any before the Priests have laid out the Tenth to their gods. [...], A.R. his view of all Religi­ons. I have read that in the old Arabians Religion, the custom of the Nabathaeans was to pay Tythes of their Frankincense to their god Sabis, and the Priests are not to take it by weight but by measure; and they are tied by their Dicipline not to gather Cynamon till they first sacrifice, then they divide it with a consecrated Spear, and assign to that God they worship his portion, and af­terwards they take their own parts to themselves. Plut in the life of Ca­millus. And Plutarch relates of Camil­lus that Roman Dictator, and valiant Soul­dier (who by some was called the Sword of Rome) when he went to War as Captain General of the Roman Army against the fa­mous City of the Vejans (which some take to be the Venetians) before the Roman Em­perors, Dr Heylins Geograph. [Page 21]and divers hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, he vowed that if he won the City, he would offer the tenth part of the Spoils unto the gods. But after the Victory, he did either forget his vow, or was unwilling to trouble the City, or suf­fered the Soldiers to take the Spoils with­out reserving the Tythes of all as he had vowed. But after, when upon some occa­sions the Romans thought the Divine Powers were offended (though they did not know for what) and that Camillus was discharged of his charge of being General: He acqaint­ed the Senators with his vow, upon which they made an order, That every man should upon oath present the tenth part of all his gains in that War, that so it might be given to the gods. But that being found difficult, they agreed, That a massie cup of gold should be made and sent to the Temple of Apollo at Delphos (whom they esteemed a chief amongst the gods) in lieu or exchange of the Tythes: Yea, and the Ladies and rich women were so zealous to promote this gift, that they gave their gold and jew­els to make it more rich, and as they thought more acceptable.

I should not have remembred these Reli­gious and conscientious payments of Tythes by these Heathens, these Gentiles, children of Japhet or Ham, but to answer a proud peremptory Quaker, who called me Old Jew, because I justified that it was lawful for the Ministers of Christ to take Tythes, and that they were justifiable by the writ­ten [Page 22]Word of God; Jos. B. when as he thought them to be onely a Jewish Ceremony. But it is evident that Tythes are not onely Jewish, or paid by the Jews onely. For an­tient History tells, that the Gentiles paid Tythes as well as the Jews. And although these Histories are not to be received with a divine faith, as well as Scripture, yet they are to be credited as well as our Chronicles, which testifie there was a King William the Conqueror, or King Henry the Eighth that pulled down or dissolved the Abbies, or a King Edward the Sixt, Queen Mary, or Queen Elizabeth, or as after ages may believe there was a King Charles, and a dismal War in England, upon which hath followed these sirange and wonderful changes we have seen with our eyes. I might add more, but who are not satisfied, Dr. Carle­ton Tythes examined and prov' [...] to be due, by Diviue right. I leave them to those learned men who have writ and proved the Divine right of Tythes, and to other Histo­ries which record the practises of Pai­nims.

This that you have read may suffice to witness, that the payment of Tythes was acknowledged a due to God amongst the Gentiles to that God they did know, Dr. Tilles­ley his Ani­madvers. upon Sel­dens Hist. of Tythes. Dr. Slater, Mr. Prynn, &c. and this even by the Law or light of Nature, or Tradition of Gods Law acknow­ledged by a common consent that Tythes were due to God (to that God they did know and worship) and certainly this custom could not be so common amongst, or in so many Nations, had there not been some Divine instinct from the Law of Na­ture, [Page 23]or knowledge of some divine law from their forefathers, that Tythes were due to God from all nations by a divine right for his worship and service, as an owning of a Divine Power, Ps. 40.10, 11, 12. who is chief Lord and owner of all we have. But of the tenth, God's own part, he is owner of that in a special manner as his own reserved portion for his worship and service, for this the Lord chal­lengeth in a special manner for his own por­tion; witness God's servant Voses that great Prophet: All the Tythe of the land, Lev. 27.30, 31. of the seed of the land, and of the fruit of the tree, it is the Lords, Lev 27.30. He doth not say it is the Priests, or the Levites, or the peoples, but it is the Lords. And thus the Lord himself by the Prophet Malachi doth many hundred years afters challenge the Tythe as his own; And when the people did not pay their Tythe as his due, the Lord calleth them thieves and robbers, and tells them they had robbed him: Will a man rob God? Mal. 3.8, 9. yet ye have robbed me, saith the Lord. But ye say, wherein have we robbed thee? And he answers, In Tythes and Offerings. And he concludes v. 9. Ye are cursed with a curse, for ye have robbed me even this whole nation. So that the Tythes were the Lords, his own part and portion to be disposed of at his pleasure; all the time of the Old Testament, from Adam to Moses, and from Moses to Malachi, the Lord had a reserved part due to him as chief Lord of all.

But the Quakers and some of these Ana­baptists will object, Objection. What is this to the [Page 24]Priests and Levites, either before, or since Christ? If Tythes be the Lords portion, what have the Priests and Levites to do with it, or how come they to challenge any right in them, or title to them?

The Answer is easie. Answer. When the first-born in the family were the Lords Priests and Prophets to offer sacrifice to God, as Adam, and Cain, and Abel did; or to teach their families, Gen. 18.18, 19. Gen. 20.7. Gen. 26.25 as faithful Abraham and the Pa­triarchs, and their first-born did; as we read Gen. 8.18, 19. Num. 8.17. Then the Lord needed not his part of his Tenths for maintenance of his Priests and Levites, but what part he had was chiefly for his sacri­fices and services But when he took to him the Levites in stead of the First-born, as Num 8.18. then you may read the Lords Deed of gift of his part of the Tythes to Levi for an inheritance: Num. 18.20, 21. Behold (saith the Lord to Aaron) I am thy part and thy inheri­tance amongst the children of Israel; and be­hold I have given the children of Israel all the Tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for the service which they serve, even the service of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, Lev. 18.21. And thus you may see what title the Levites and Ministers of God have to the Lords part, even by a Deed of gift from the Lord him­self: And this is a Deed or Great Charter enrolled and recorded in sacred Scripture, the written Word of God himself. Object. 2

I know the common Objection: We will grant (say they) that the Lord did give part of the Tythe to Levi and his posterity [Page 25]that taught the people, as Nehemiah: Nehem. 8:7, 8, 9. But he did not give all to them; for part was to be eaten before the Lord, in the place which the Lord did choose to put his name, there they the children of Israel were to bring their tythes, and their sacrifices, and their choise vows, and to eat them before the Lord with their families, they and their sons and daughters, and men-servants and maid-servants, and Levite within their gates, yea the poor stranger, and widow and fa­therless, as we may read Deut. 12.11, 12. & Deut. 14.29. Therefore the Tythes were not all given to the Levites as their porti­on, as is said by the Ministers that plead for Tythes.

For Answer: If you read, Answ. Ʋltra duas Decimas quas quo­tannis pen­dere jam jussi, 1. Al­teram Levi­tis, 2. Al­teram in sacras epu­las, 3. Ter­tia tertio quoque an­no est con­ferenda, quae in egenos vicinos & pupillos distribuatur. Joseph. Antiq. lib. 4. cap. 8. you may find there was a threefold Tythe which the chil­dren of Israel did pay. The first Tythe was the tenth of the whole increase, which was first tythed; and this was the Levites por­tion, and might be eaten every where with their houshold, because it is a reward unto them for their service; But first they were to give the Heave-offering, the tythe of that tythe, to Aaron the High-Priest, as you may read Numb. 18.26. And this Tythe hath a Morality in it, as after we shall shew.

Again, there was a second Tythe of the Nine parts that were tythed before: And this Tythe might not be eaten in any place, as the first Tythe which was the Levites portion might, but at Jerusalem. Thus you [Page 26]may read Deut. 14. Deut. 14.22, 23, &c. Tything thou shalt tythe (or thou shalt truly tythe) all the increase of thy seed which thy field bringeth forth, and thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God in the place he shall chuse to place his name there; and if the place be too far, thou shalt turn it into money and buy what thy soul liketh, and shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou and thy houshold, and the Levite within thy gates. Ainsworth in Deu. 14. This second Tythe might not be eaten any where but before the Lord in Jerusalem, as the Hebrew Doctors affirm, and is evident from the text. This might be Levitical, and to end with that Temple-worship.

Thirdly, besides these two Tythes, there was in the place or stead of this second Tythe a third Tythe every third year, Amos 4.4. Tythes after three years, &c. which was for the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless and the widow within their gates, as you may read Deut. 14.28, 29. This may cease in part as a Tenth, but the substance is moral.

But the first Tythe was wholly for the Levites for their maintenance, as the Lords wages or reward the Lord alloweth them for their service in the Sanctuary, to con­tinue in the Gospel, as after will appear. Yea, besides the Tythes, the Lords portion, the Lord commanded that the Levites should have their Cities to dwell in, Num. 35.3 4, 5, 6, &c. and the suburbs of them shall be for their cattel and for their goods, and for all their beasts; and the suburbs of the city shall reach from the wall of the city two thousand cubits round about, Num 35. Rich conveniences, besides [Page 27]extraordinaries, which were very many. This was the Levites lawful gain due unto them by Divine right, by the law of God, and law of Nature, as a reward for their labor in the Lords service. And this gain they might lawfully seek after, every one for his gain from his quarter. And this they did, when their just portion and mainte­nance was not brought them by the people. Nehem 13.10, 11, 12. The Levites went every one to his field for his just gain or portion, as you may find Neh. 13. Thus did the Levites seek every one for his gain from his quarter to live of, his portion of land and tythes at his field, when the se­cond tythe was not brought into the trea­sury as it ought to have been. And this was just and lawful for them to do, as the Mi­nisters of Christ may lawfully do at this day.

There is another Objection. Object 3 Though the Lord had a part in every mans estate, the tenth of every increase which the Lord did give to the Levites, the Lords Ministers be­fore the coming of Christ; yet now since Christ is come, and is not only dead, as the High-Priest of our profession having offered himself to God for us once for all, Heb. 3.1, 2. and is not only risen again and ascended into heaven and liveth for evermore, Rev. 1.18. but maketh intercession for us to God his Father, and the Levitical Priesthood is ended: Now what evidence is there that God hath any part or portion in mens estates or the in­creases of them for himself, or to be disposed of as his own? or that the Ministers of Christ [Page 28]have either Tythes or any Maintenance due unto them by Divine right, since Christ? And then, how can it be lawful for them to seek after every one his gain, as they do?

For answer: Answer. First, if it be granted that the Lord had a reserved part of the earth and increase thereof for himself, yea that the Tythes or Tenths were the Lords excepted and reserved portion which he had not given to the sons of Adam, or to Noah's posterity, and that this was the Lords for his service until Christs coming in the flesh, Gen. 3.17, &c. which I conceive none will deny that truly believeth there is a God that created the world, and gave part only, not all to Adam, or that truly believes the Holy Scriptures to be the writ­ten word of God; Question. Then I desire to know by what Deed of gift the Lord hath given these Tythes his own portion from himself, or from his Ministers and servants who once had them? Whether he hath released his right and title which in a special manner he had in the earth and the increases there­of, to any man, and to whom? Hath God released his special right in the tenth part, the Tythes of all, which were once, yea which are the Lords own, if none can shew a better title to them? Let us search the Records in the New Testament, and first see if we can find any such Release or Deed of gift from God and his servants, and to whom? Secondly, see what is registred for the maintenance and continuance of Gods right unto them. That so we may better [Page 29]answer the Anabaptists, who call Tythes the wages of unrighteousness; or the Quakers who accuse the Ministers of Christ as if they did seek for unlawful gain, the gain of Tythes, of that which is neither God's nor theirs, every one for his gain from his quar­ter or people.

I have searched the New Testament, and can find Tythes mentioned but only in four places; and in none of these doth Christ deny, or give away, or release his right to his tenth part, or forbid his Minfsters to receive Tythes; yea rather Tythes are ap­proved by Christ, and his Apostles that speak of them.

First place. The first place is that of our Saviour, Mat 23.23. where he pronounceth that woe against the Scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisie: Woe unto you Scribes and Phari­sees hypocrites; for ye pay tythe of mint, and annise, and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: These things ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. It is evident our Saviour doth not reprove them for their paiment of Tythes, but for their omission and neglect of the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, mercy, and saith. For he tells them plainly, it was their duty to pay their tythes even of the smallest things, mint and annise, and cummin; these things ought not to be left undone. Thus both the pay­ment of tythes even in the time of Christ, and Christs approbation of tythes, is wit­nessed at full in this place; No prohibition [Page 30]of tythes evidenced, no cessation of tythes declared, no denying of Christs Ministers to receive tythes.

2. Again, a second place we find Tythes spoken of in the New Testament, is that of our Saviour recorded Luke 11.42: to the same effect with the former, Woe un­to you Scribes and Pharisees, for ye tythe Mint, and Rue, and all manner of Herbs, and pass over judgement and the love of God; these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. You see our Saviour in this place also approveth of the payment of Tythes, not a word of prohibition or ces­sation, but an approbation of the payment of Tythes, as the peoples duty in those days. Had he declared that Tythes should no more be paid after his time, certainly it would have pleased many a carnal hearer at that time, as the hopes of that prohibiti­on or cessation it is to be feared would please too many carnal hearted, prophane, or spiritually and Antichristianly deluded and seduced souls in these days, who would remove both Ministers and their just Main­tenance, if it did lie within their power: But you have not a word from Christ of cessation or taking away of Tythes from the Priests of those times, or from the Mi­nisters of the Gospel in succeeding ages.

3. The third place in which Tythes are spoken of, is that of the same Evangelist, Luke 18.11, 12. Two men went out into the Temple to pray, the one a Pharisee the other a publican, the Pharisee gloried in his per­formances, [Page 31] God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican; I fast twice in the week, and give Tythes of all that I possess: The Publican humble in his own eyes, O God be merciful to me a sinner. Our Saviour doth not condemn the Pharisee for his giving of his Tythes of all he did possess; but for that he trusted in his own righte­ousness, as you may see evidently mani­fest in the end why Christ did speak the Pa­rable, Luke 18.9. He spake this Parable un­to certain that trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others. So that you see here is not a word of our Saviour against Tythes, or the payment of Tythes in his time, nor a word of prohibi­tion that his Ministers in the New Testa­ment should not receive Tythes; yea, rather Christ approveth the payment of Tythes, as part of the Pharisees righteousness which they ought not to leave undone, and he tells his Disciples, that exccept their righteousnss do exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, Matth: 5.20. Origen in Mat. From which Origen in his time prosseth the payment of Tythes in the Gospel as a duty.

The fourth and last place in the New Te­stament where tythes are spoken of, is that of the Apostle Heb. 7. in which Chapter tythes are mentioned six or seven several times, and in none of these are Tythes con­demned by the Spirit of God in the A­postles, but rather approved and declared [Page 32]to continue even to the worlds end, as Christ's right and special part for mainte­nance of his service, who is a Priest not af­ter the order of Aaron for a time, but a Priest for ever after the order of Melchi­sedec.

To give you a clear light to see this truth, read the Chapter, and you shall finde that the Apostle in the three first verses rehears­eth the History recorded in Genesis of Mel­chisedec and Abraham. First, Melchisedec described by his Offices, 1. A King, or King of Salem, vers. 1. Interpreted first, King of Righteousness; secondly, King of Salem, that is, King of Peace, vers. 1, 2. 2. A Priest of the most high God, yea, made like the Son of God, abiding a Priest continually, vers. 2. 3. He describeth Melchisedec by his Actions. First, he met Abraham as he re­turned from the slaughter of the Kings: Se­condly, He blessed him.

2. Again, he describeth Abraham by his owning of Melchisedec as a Priest of the most high God, giving him the tenth of all, as Gods portion, the Tythe due to God; To whom Abraham gave the tenth part of all, vers. 2.

3. He sets forth the greatness of Mel­chisedec above the Patriark Abraham. First, Because Abraham gave him the tenth: Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the Fatriark Abrahm gave the tenth of the Spoils, De summi­tatibus re­rum, Of the tops of things. vers. 4. So our Translators render it. But the Greek is [...], de praecipuis, &c. the Greek signifies [Page 33]of the tops of the heaps, of the very best things which may be, of other things as well as of the spoils. Secondly, because Melchi­sedec blessed him, for the less is blessed of the greater, saith the Apostle, vers. 7.

4. The Apostle compareth the Priesthood of Melchisedec and Aarons [...]iesthood toge­ther, and proveth the superexcellency of Melchisedec's Priesthood above Aaron's; and this by divers arguments taken from Tythes, or their divers grounds, manner, and order of their taking of Tythes; as you may read in the fift and sixt verses, and the verses following. For first, vers. 5. he af­firmes, that they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the Priesthood, they have a commandment to receive Tythes of the people according to the Law, or by vertue of that law; yea, of their brethren, though they came out of the loyns of Abraham. But verse the sixth, He, that is Melchisedec, Heb. 7.6. whose descent is not counted from them, re­ceived Tythes of Abraham, great Grandfa­ther of Levi who had the Priestood, and bles­sed him that had the promises: Therefore Mel­chisedec's Priesthood is far more excellent then the Priesthood of Aaron or Levi, be­cause he received Tythes not by vertue of the Levitical Law, but by a higher and far more antient right, even by a right from God himself, as Gods High Priest, more an­tient then Levi by far, as your may read Gen. 14.20. Abraham, Great-Grandfather of Levi, paid Tythes to Melchisedec the Priest of the most high God, four hundred years [Page 34]before Levi's Priesthood was appoint­ed.

Secondly, Heb. 7.8. Verse the eighth, the Apostle proveth this by another Argument: Heb. 7.8. Here men that dye (saith he) receive Tythes; that is, herein in the Priests of Aaron and Levies order, they who are mortal receive Tythes; they and their Priesthood are mortal, and so their receiving of Tythes it mortal, as dy­ing like themselves, and their order of Priesthood is dead and gone, and their ty­thing dead as Levies Priesthood ended; But here Melchisedec, that Priest of the most high God, and his order receive tythes, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth: for verse 3. Melchisedec is said to have nei­ther beginning of days, nor end of life, and so he liveth to receive tythes while the world lasted, not in himself but in Christ, whom he typified, and who is a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec, and so to receive Tythes as Melchisedec did, not from any right from Levi or the Levitical Law, but in his own right from God his Father, who made him heir of all, Heb. 1.2.

Thirdly, Melchisedec's Priesthood was more excellent then Aaron's or Levi's, be­cause Levi who received tythes, paid tythes in Abraham to Melchisedec, for he was yet in the loyns of his Father his Grandfather Abraham when Melchisedec met him, as the Apostle declareth, Heb. 7.9, 10. Vers 9, 10. But we read not that Melchisedec paid tythes at all. It is Christ's priviledge to receive tythes, not to pay tythes; therefore Melchisedec's and [Page 35] Christ's Priesthood is far more excellent then Aaron's or Levi's Priesthood or their order.

Fourthly, The Apostle taketh another Argument from the Law of Ordination of each Priesthood, Melchisedec's and Aaron's, and so of Christ's and Aarons. This vers. 15, 16, 17. Because Christ who ariseth another Priest after the order or similtude of Melchi­sedec, he is made not after the Law of a car­nal commandment, the Levitical Law which is ended, Psa. 110.4. but after the power of an endless life: Thou art a Priest for ever after the or­der of Melceisedec. Therefore as Melchise­dec did, so doth and may Christ receive tythes, for they are Gods part, and Christ's part as Heir to God his Father, and so tythes are rightly, yea, by Divine right due to Christ.

And thus you see there is nothing in the New Testament in all these places in which tythes are mentioned, by which God the Father may be proved to have given away tythes from Christ his Son, the Lord of his Church and of his Servants in the Ministery of the Gospel, nor in which Christ hath re­leased his right to any, or disposed of it to any but to his Ministers for their labor in his service in the Gospel. Therefore what­soever the erring Anabaptists or Quakers speak to the contrary to their seduced Di­sciples, Tythes are the Lords still, and will be to the end of the world.

But some Quakers or Anabaptists it may be will object further, Object. 4 If we grant that [Page 36]Tythes are the Lord Christs, yet what proof is there that they are the Ministers of Christ now in the New Testament? Christ doth not name Tythes with any command to give them to his Ministers and Ambassa­dors: where find we any such thing in the New Testament?

I answer, Answer. Although Christ doth not name Tythes by a particular command to pay them to his Ministers, yet he doth by him­self and by his Spirit in the Apostles com­mand as much in substance as if he had na­med Tythes, or challenged his right in them for the maintenance of his servants in the work of the Gospel.

For first, Mat. 10.7.8. Luk. 10.1, 2, 3.4, &c. If we read the manner of Christs Commission, or sending those his Disciples to preach the Gospel, as it is re­corded Mat. 10. and Luk. 10. Christ sends them forth as laborers into his harvest, and he giveth them a charge to take no purse, nor scrip, nor silver, nor brass, no provisi, on for maintenance, but to eat and drink what was set before them; and he giveth the reason, For the laborer is worthy of his meat, and worthy of his hire, or reward for his labor. Now I demand the Question, Whose laborers are Christ Ministers? are they not Christs? and who should pay them their wages, or give reward or main­tenance for their labor in preaching and pub­lishing the Gospel? is it not Christ? and out of whose substance or estate should Christ pay his Workmen? is it not our of his own? If not, why then did not Christ give them [Page 37]provision with them, when he sent them out to preach the Gospel; but sends them to the people of the world (many of which would not receive them) and wisheth them to receive of the people whither they came for their maintenance? Certainly it is not that Christ would take any thing from o­thers that was none of his own, to pay his workmen with; but to teach us, that Christ had a part, a portion and inheritance in the peoples hands, the Tythes, the Lords re­served part; and out of this his own part Christ expected, his Disciples, his Preachers of the Gospel should be maintained, and threatens those who should refuse to give his servants entertainment; Luk. 10.11. If any receive you not (saith Christ) shake off the dust of your feet against them. And it shall be easier for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judg­ment, then for that man, or that woman, or that city that refuseth Christs servants, or denieth them that part which the Lord Christ appoints them for their just and due maintenance. Witness our Saviour himself, Luke 10.10, 11.

2. Again, Rom. 15.26, 27. the Apostle Paul holdeth forth this as a duty, That to those that communi­cate spiritual things, it is the peoples duty to communicate carnal things to them, Rom. 15.26. Thus between the Jews and the Gentile, and thus between the Ministers of Christ and the people; for the reason is the same: The Ministers communicate spi­ritual things in the preaching of the Gospel, therefore the people are debrors to them, [Page 38]and it is their duty to communicate tempor­ral or carnal things, such as are for the com­fortable livelihood of Christs Ministers. And if it be the peoples duty, then it is a debt they owe to Christ and to his servants; and if they owe it to God and to Christ, then it is Gods, none of theirs. And what is held forth to be Gods special part or portion for main­tenance of his service and servants, Mal. 3. Heb. 7. but the tenth part, the Tythes, which were and are Gods and Christs, as noted before.

3. The same Apostle, A compa­tatis. 1 Cor. 9 proveth by divers arguments from divers compari­sons, that there is a part due to Gods faithful Ministers, laborers for Christ in the Gospel. Thus vers. 7. —

1. From a Soldier: 1 Tim. 6.12. 2 Tim. 23. Jud. v. 4. And why noticceive their pay due from Christ for the same? 1 Cor. 3.6, 7. From a Soldier: Who goeth a warfare at any time at his own charges? Gods Mini­sters are soldiers for Christ, to defend the truth of the Gospel against all enemies, to contend for the faith once given to the Saints.

2. Again, Who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Gods Mini­sters are planters; And wherefore should they not eat of the fruit for their labor? feed on Gods part which he hath reserved, the Tythes, for their maintenance?

3. Act. 20, 28 Who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Gods Ministers are Shepherds, and wherefore should they not eat of the milk of the Flock? why should not Gods tenth be for their nourishment?

4. The like arguments taken from the husbandman and other laborers, and these [Page 39]grounded upon the law, the law of God, nature or reason, vers. 8, 9. Say I these things of my self, (saith he) saith not the law also the same? For it is written in the law of Mo­ses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the oxe that treadeth out the corn. Den. 25.4 1 Cor. 3.9 10. Doth God take care for oxen, or saith he it altogether for our sates? For our sakes no doubt this is written, that he that ploweth should plow in hope, and he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. Gods Ministers are Gods husband­men and laborers, Gods people are Gods husbandry: And good reason Gods laborers should partake of the benefit of their labors, and receive Gods part, the Tenth which the Lord hath reserved for them.

Th [...] Apostle proceeds with other argu­ments from the equity of this duty, v. 11. No man goeth to war with­out wages &c. We are Mini­sters of Christ, fig [...] for you, plant you, feed you, &c Ergo, It is your duty to pay us wages, fruit, and m [...]lk. Sir James Sempill of Sacrilege since Gospel, p 53. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we reap your carnal things? If we communicate to you the Gospel-glad­tidings for the nourishment of your souls, is it a great matter that we receive Gods part from you for the nourishment of our bodies?

In a word, this he confirms by analogie and similitude with the maintenance of the Priests and Levites before Christ. If the Priests and Levites who did minister about holy things of the Temple, did by Gods appoint­ment live of those holy things, namely of Gods reserved part, the Tythes, and of Gods con­secrated [Page 40]part, As Levi lived by the Law, so must our Mini­stry by the Gospel: but Levi lived of holythings by the law viz tythes, Ergo, so must Ministers live of them in he Gospel. Sir J. Semp. p. 58 As Levi lived by the Law, so must we by the Gospel, but Ievi lived by a certain maintenance by the Law, viz tythes, Ergo, so must we live by a certain maintenance in the Gospel, and why not by tythes? Idem p. 56. things dedicated and freely given to God by the people; then certainly the Ministers of Christ who in like manner so preach the Gospel, should according to Christs appointment live of the Gospel, yea of Christs reserved part, the tenths of all, and of those free gifts where tythes are not sufficient for their comfortable maintenance in and for their attendance upon the service of Christ their Lord and Master.

Thus doth the Apostle, though not name tythes, yet require as much in effect as a duty from the people to communicate tythes, or an equal maintenance for and to the Ministers of Christ: And this from the Lords ordinance for the paiment of that certain reward for their labor, Luke 10.1, 2, 3, &c. which the Lord hath appointed. And of this certain reward or wages, we read not in the Scri­pture what part it is, but the Lords portion of tythes, which was and is Gods part, as we prove before.

Fourthly, Gal. 6.6. If you consider that command of the same Apostle Gal. 6.6. it will make this yet more evident: Let him that is taught in the word, communicate to him that teacheth him, [...], in omnibus bonis, in all goods; Our translators render it, in all good things. But if it be in all good things that he must make his Teacher partaker of, yet [Page 41]whose must they be? And if they be his own good things, and then of his own goods, why should the Apostle require this as a duty, Let him that is instructed, make him that instructeth him partaker of all his goods? And why this as a duty to Christs servants, if Christ hath not a right in them?

But what part must he make him par­taker of? Question.

Certainly the Quaker or Anabaptist will not say, of the sixth part, Answer. nor of the seventh nor eight part; And we will not say, of the fiftieth, or fortieth, or twentieth part of his yearly increase; that in most places will be too little for the comfortable maintenance of a Minister of the Gospel, and to provide for his family, them of his own house which he ought to take care of, otherwise he de­nieth the faith and is worse then an infidel; Agree that Christ hath a right to some part. witness this Apostle, 1 Tim. 5.8. Let us agree then, that Christ hath a right to some part, whatsoever part the Lord himself in his infinite wisdom hath set down and de­termined as his own reserved part for the maintenance of his Ministers, that is the most fit, the most equal, and just part to be paid and given from him that is taught the Gospel of grace, to him that teacheth him: Gen. 14.8. ch. 28. And this is the Tenth of all. This tenth Abraham paid to Melchisedec, and Jacob vowed this tenth to God before the Levitical Priesthood was in the world. This tenth part he gave to Levi for an inheritance for his service in the Sanctuary during the life [Page 42]of his Priesthood, and this tenth is due to Christ, who is a Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec; and good reason the Ministers of Christ should partake of this tenth, and receive it for Christ as Christs part for their service, to the end of the world. Thus you see what may be the sense of the Apostle, Let him that is instructed make him that instructeth him partaker of all goods; or in all good things of Christ in his possession. For if Christ have no right, why should he pay his Servants wages of that which he had no right unto? certainly he would not do it.

But some Quaker or Anabaptist or others, Object. will yet object, If the tenth be Christs and his Ministers, Mat 10. Luke. 10. then wherefore did not Christ direct his Disciples, when he sent them a­broad to preach the Gospel, to require the tenth of the people? nor his Apostle Paul, neither in that 1 Cor. 9. nor in this place Gal. 6.6. command and expresly require their tythes as due to Christ and his Mini­sters by divine right, and to be paid upon pain of damnation, Luk. 10. Mal. 3.7, 8 it being no less sin then sacriledge to rob God or Christ of them, as is taught by some godly men both in anti­ent and latter times.

I answer; Answer 1 First for Christ, the Tythes were then in his time, and when he sent sorth his Disciples, paid to the Jewish Priests and Levites of Aaron's or Levi's order, as is evident in the Pharisees practice, Luk. 18.12. And if Christ had commanded or directed his Disciples to demand Tythes, it would [Page 43]have occasioned a controversie not easie to be decided. Besides, Levi's Priesthood was not then ended, and therefore Tythes were then due to them, and so ought to be paid, as our Saviour himself tells the Pharisees, Matth. 23.23. Therefore there was no rea­son Christ should then have commanded his Disciples to demand Tythes. Again, If Tythes had been to have ended with Le­vi's Priesthood, and never to have been re­ceived by any of the Ministers of Christ, then we may demand on the contrary part, wherefore did not Christ our Saviour give an absolute prohibition to his Disciples, and to preach it to all that should be converted to Christianity, that they ought never to take any Tythes; but that Tythes should be declared to end with Levi's Priesthood? and this would have ended the question, and settled a great deal of quiet in the Church, if Christ had declared what main­tenance his Ministers should have instead of Tythes; for Christ was faithful in all his house, as Moses, Hebr. 3.2. But Christ no where forbids Tythes, nor serteth any maintenance instead of Tythes, and there­fore Tythes certainly are to coninue still by the mind of Christ, even to the end of the world; for would Christ here provide no settled maintenance for his Ministers, who were sure to finde cold entertainment in the world?

For the Apostle, that he did not require Tythes of the Corinthians or Galatians, nor claim them as due to Christ's Ministers [Page 44]by Divine right, nor other Apostles, Peter, John, James or the rest; there are good and sufficient grounds, reasons good enough to answer this Objection.

1. In those days in divers places, and especially at Jerusalem, there was a com­munity of goods; the Belivers sold ther Estates, and laid the mony down at the Apostles feet, Act. 4.32.34. and what need was there then of any claim of Tythes, when all was at the dispose of the Ministers and Apostles of Christ, or of the Church and Deacons, and they lived of the com­mon Treasuries, what wisdom had it then been to claim Tythes?

2. Euseb. Ec. Hist lib. 4. cap. 25. Again, then were times of persecuti­on, as you may read Act. 11.19. & 12 1, 2. &c. and this persecution against the Church con­tinued to after times, above a hundred and fifty years after hrist, as Eusebius relateth. Melito Bishop of Sardis in his A pology to the Emperor writeth, that the godly people were grieved by new Edicts publish­ed throughout Asia, and suffered persecution; yea impudent Sycophants, and greedy gapers after other mens goods, having gotten occasion through those Proclamati­ons, openly rob and spoile day and night; therefore he desires the [...]mperor that he would not despise them who were greived and oppressed with that shamefull spoile; Diverse persecutions were both be­fore and after, and was it then a time for the Ministers of Christ to press or claime the Tythes of poor persecuted Christians? cer­tainly no.

3. These Corinthians and Galatians, and others Churches were but new Con­verts living amongst other Gentiles, who were unbelievers; and though the Apostle did claim and argue for his right of main­tenance, yet to avoid offence and hinde: rance of the Gospels propagation in those infant days of the Church, he did not use that power and right he had to take main­tenance of them, but charged other Church­es to spare them; not that he had not a right, or that other Ministers had not a right, but it was not then a fit time to require this right, and therefore much less to claim or preach up Christs his right in Tythes.

4. In a word, the Apostles then were travellers up and down the world, in seve­ral Countries, to preach the Gospel, and had no certain dwelling place, as Paul him­self witnesseth, 1 Cor. 4.11. and what then should they have done with Tythes, or to have claimed Tythes, when Ministers were not setled, nor was there any quiet state of the Church? And these are reasons suf­ficient to quiet the Quakers quarrelling spi­rit, if they were not restless in their malice against the Ministers of Christ; or any mo­derate Anabaptist, that their maintenance is due unto them by divine right: Thus did the Apostle spare the Gentiles of any de­mand or nameing of tythes; but when he writeth to the Hebrews, then he names tythes, Heb. 7. and declareth them to belong to Christ, and so certain to Christs Ministers, [Page 46]not from Aaron or Levi, but from Christ himself, who was a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec.

But some Quakers or Anabaptists it may be, Object. have found out that Objection (as they pretend) Heb. 7.12. The Levitical Priest­hood being changed, there must needs be a change of the Law. Therefore tythes be­ing under the Levitical Law, and that Priesthood of Levi being changed, there must needs be a change of the Law of Tythes, and so Tythes must cease in the Gospel, as being Levitical and Ceremo­nial.

I answer, Answer. It is true, That the Levitical Priesthood is changed, and that Covenant of Levi by Sacrifices and Ceremonies figu­ring Christ the Messias to come, that is chang­ed and ended, all being fulfilled in Christ; for that Law of Levies Priesthood, in what respect it was Typicall, Heb. 10.1, 2 that had but a sha­dow of good things to come; for it was not possible that the Blood of Buls and Goats could ever take away sin; therefore Christ cometh and offers his own body, and by that one offering once for all, he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified; Heb. 10.14. so that these Levitical Sacrifices they are all ended by that one sacrifice of Christ. But there were divers things which Levi did, which were not typical or figurative cere­monies to be ended at the coming or ascen­tion of Christ, or in the time of the Gospel.

As first, The Levites did ear, and drink, and wear apparel for their bodily nourish­ment, [Page 47]and preservation of the life of Na­ture; and this was not ceremonial, but nature to be done by the Law of Na­ture, and by the positive Law of God, for God commanded our first parents to eat freely of the trees of the Garden, Of every tree of the garden thou shalt eat freely, Gen. 2.16. and this was not Levitical nor Cere­monial, nor to end at the coming of Christ; for Christ himself commandeth his Disci­ples when he sent them abroad to preach the Gospel, to eat such things as were set before them, Luk. 10.8. And if these actions of Levi were ended in Christ, then it was unlawful for any man or woman to eat, or drink, or to wear apparel, which is irrational and contrary to the mind of Christ, Lu. 10.7.

Secondly, The Levites did bless the peo­ple; this was another action of theirs Num. 6.22, &c. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron and his sons, and say unto them, on this wise shall ye bless the children of Israel. And the Lord separated the Tribe of Levi to stand before the Lord, and to bless in his name, Deut. 10.1. And this was not ceremonial neither, nor to end at Christs coming; for Christ teacheth his Di­sciples to bless them that curse them, Mat. 5.44. And the Apostles and Ministers of Christ do bless the bread and wine in the Sacrament, 1 Cor. 10.16. And it was the practice of the Church and Ministers of Christ to bless or pray for a blessing on the corgregation, 1 Cor. 4.16.

Thirdly, The Levites taught the good [Page 48]knowledge of God, for which that good King Hezekiah spake comfortably to them 2 Chron. 30.22. And they did read in the Book of the Law, Nehem. 8.8, 9. and gave the sense, and caused to understand the reading, Nehem. 8. And these actions were not ceremonial, nor to be abolished by Christ; for Christ commands his Disciples that they should go and teach all Nations, Mat. 28.19, 20. And thus Phi­lip did by the direction of the Spirit of God, he opened the Prophet Isaiah to the Eu­ [...]uch, Acts 8.30.35. And the Apostle tells us, that Christ gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastort and Teachers, Ephes. 4.11. and therefore this office of teaching the people was not meerly Leviticall, and to be abolished by Christ; we see the holy Scri­pture, doth plainly witness the con­trary.

Fourthly, Reward and wages for Levi's service was not ceremonial, but Moral, ac­cording to the Law of God and Nature; not to end in Christ, or at Christ's coming, but to continue to God to his Minister, laborers, and Servants for their labor in the work of the Gospel unto the end of the world; for Christ himself appointed wages for his A­postles and Ministers, and this not of chari­ty, or Alms, at mens pleasure whether they will pay or not, but of due debt for their labor: When he sent them to preach the Gospel, he gave them direction to ex­pect wages and maintenance from them to whom he sends them, Provide (saith he) [Page 49] neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, neither scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shooes, nor yet staves; for the workman is worthy of his meat, Mat. 10. Mat. 10.11 and Luk. 10.7. for the laborer is worthy of his hire, or reward, it is due to him, and the people to whom he preacheth the Go­spel are bound by the Law of God and Na­ture to pay him for his labor. And hence the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 9.14. Christ hath ordained that those that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel, of their due reward and main­tenance for their labor in preaching the Gospel. And the Elders that tule well (saith the Apostle) are worthy of double honor, 1 Tim. 5.17, 18. espe­cially they that labor in the word and doctrine. And he gives the reason from the Law of God and Nature, For the Scripture saith thou shalt not mussel the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the corn; and the laborer is wor­thy of his reward. Therefore maintenance of Ministers was not Levitical, but Moral, as wages and reward for their labor, as all other mens labor is and will be to the end of the world.

But doth not our Savior say, Objection. Freely you have received, freely give; what wages then can Christs Ministers require?

I answer, read that Text Matth. 10.8. Answer. Christ gave them a miraculous power to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, and to cast out Devils, and to this he adds, freely ye have received, freely give: But for preaching of the Gospel he doth not say so, for he directs them to receive meat, drink, [Page 50]and wages, as if you compare those Scri­ptures Mat. 10. and Luk. 10. you may see the Apostles of Christ then might, and the Mi­nisters of Christ may lawfully expect and require Gods reward or wages for their labor in preaching of the Gospel, and that was the Tenths, as we have proved already, they may lawfully look every man for his just gain from his quarter.

Fourthly, Judicial were the Givil laws of the Jews Lev. 17.30, &c. Tythes ho­ly to the Lord. The Tythes which were given to Levi for his service, were not Levitical, ceremonial, nor typical, nor Judicial, which were the Jews Civil Laws, whatsoever the Quakers or Anabaptists or any other have dreamed to the contrary; no holy things are Judicial, but Tythes were holy things; and Tythes were not shadows, and figures of holy things, not ceremonies to be abo­lished by Christ, but the Lords own por­tion declared to be Gods part, in every mans estate, long before Levi or the Leviti­cal Law was instituted, though given to the Levites by Gods appointment for their service during the life of that Priesthood, and Gods part still, Christ's inheritance, and the inheritance of his Ministers to the worlds end, for there is a mora­lity in them, and they are Gods part, for which he will call men to a reckoning at the great day of Judgement, when all the sacrilegious wretches in the world shall tremble, except God in time give them to see their sin and repent: For although Le­vi's Priesthood be dead, Heb. 7. yet Christ liveth who receiveth Tythes (as the Apostle wit­nesses) [Page 51]and Christ's Ministers live and re­ceive Tythe, not by any right from Levi or Aaron's Priesthood, but from Christ who is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchi­sedec. That Tythes were ceremonial, was an opinion devised by Alexander de Hales an Englishman, Dr. Carle­ton in his Tythes examined, and divine right pro­ved, fol. 20 who lived about twelve hun­dred years after Christ, as that learned Dr. Carleton well observes, and this indeed to please the Pope, that he might better ap­propriate Tythes to his Monasteries, his Abbots, Monks and Fryars, as after we shall touch. A ceremony is well described to be a carnal type of a holy thing, which for the service of the Tabernacle was en­joyned only until the time of Reformation, as the Apostle Heb. 9.10 holds them forth unto us; but Tythes are no such ceremo­nies, they have a morality in them, and what­soever arguments may be brought against the morality and perpetuity of Tythes, the same may be brought against the morality and continuance of the Sabath or Lords Day, as that learned, acute and solid Dr. Sclater in his sevenfold parallel of Argu­ments against the morality of Tything, Dr. Sclater in his Q [...]e­stion of Tyth [...]s, rev [...]s [...] and pro­ved mo­ral, pag. 224 A book I never read till I had almost ended the Answer of this Que­stion. and the morality of the Sabbath, or Lords Day, doth manifest. These opinions, that Tythes and Sabbath are ceremonial, have run pa­rallel in the hands of those who would de­stroy both the time and maintenance of the Worship and service of God in the Gospel, as if since Christ there was no Lords Day [Page 52]to be kept holy, as a time appointed in special for the glorifying of God and good of poor souls. And as if there were no maintenance due to Christ's Ministers, since Christ's ascension into Heaven; an opinion well agreeing to the prophane Atheists of the world, who like those fools in the Psalm say in their hearts there is no God; Psa. 14.1. and those high conceited Familists and quaking spirits, who boast their are equal with God; or those who deny the souls immortality, or dream that it dieth with the body, or is turned in­to they know not what. But one day they shall be awakened; when the trumpet shall sound, and the voyce of the Arch-angel shall cry out, Arise yet dead and come to Judge­ment. And then they will find, that there is a God that is greater then they, that he hath appointed a Sabbath or rest day, the Lords Day, for his special service, and appointed Maintenance for his Ministers; yea, that their souls are immortal, and the Lord Je­sus is Judge of quick and dead: The Lord open their eyes in time, to see their errors, and repent, if it be his blessed will and plea­sure.

And thus I have sufficiently answered that Objection, Where there is a change of the Priesthood, there must be a change of the Law: We grant a change of Levi's Priesthood, and of Levi's Law; and yet the Law of Tythes, as maintenance for Christ's Mini­sters, remains still, not from Levi, but Christ, who is a Priest for ever after the order of Mel­chisedec, and ever liveth to take Tythes, [Page 53]though not in his own person, yet as he or God his Father did before Christ's coming in the flesh by his Ministers and Servants, whom he hath ordained to teach his people. Sir J Sem­pil in his Sacriledge S. handled in which he proves the Divine right of Tythes. Hebr. 7. I shall conclude the evidence of this An­swer to this Objection against the continu­ance of Tythes in the Gospel, with a few Syllogisms of that worthy, learned, and re­ligious Knight Sir James Sempil, in his Sa­criledge sacredly handled, and Tythes proved due by Divine right.

1. He that takes Tythes, and liveth, is a perpetual Priesthood:

Melchisedec taketh Tythes and liveth:

Ergo, Melchisedec is a perpetual Priest.

2 Whatsoever is spoken here (viz. Heb. 7.) of Melchisedec typically, is transferred unto Christ's verity.

• But Tything is spoken of Melchisedec ty­pically.
• Therefore Tythes must be transferred unto Christ's verity.

3. Whatsoever is due to an eternal Priest, is perpetually due.

• Tythes were and are due to Melchisedec an eternal Priest, viz. in himself, the Type, or in Christ the verity signified.
• Therefore Tythes are perpetually due to Melchisedec, or to Christ who is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

4. Whatsoever was given as maintenance of both the Melchisedecian and Levitical Priesthood, must be also the maintenance of the Evangelical.

But Tythes were given as maintenance of [Page 54]both the Melchisedecian and Levitical Priesthood: Ergo.

These Syllogisms are well fortified by Sir James Sempil himself against all pretended Objections; so as what hath been said might satisfie a Quaker himself, if he would be sa­tisfied.

But yet another Objection is made by some Anabaptists, Object. and these quaking adver­saries, John Cann his second Voyce from the Temple of Babylon, or Baal, p. 13, 14. and their confederates; or rather a false accusation, damning Tythes as Popish, and the pleading for them a pleading for Babilon and for Baal. Thus doth John Cann in his Second voyce from the Temple of Babilon; And that Pope Gregory the tenth was the first that ordained Tythes to be paid to the Priests, in the year 1214. And that with much mistaken ignorance and impudence, as learned, A Gospel plea, by W. Prynn or Swainsw. Esq;, godly, and laborious Mr. Willi­am Vrynn observes, in that excellent Gospel plea for Ministers maintenance, proving the antient setled maintenance of [...]ythes due by Divine Right; and contrary to these ma­levolent Quakers or Anabaptists, who would perswade men that Tythes are no older, or not so old as Antichrist, and to be abolished as Antichristian.

But for answer, Answer. let us reason the case with them a while▪ If they had that light within them which they boast of, they might see that Tythes are far more antient then An­tichrist, even as old as Melchisedec, and faith­ful Abraham, the father of the faithful, many [Page 55]hundred years before the Levitical Law, and above two thousand and five hundred years before that Romish Antichrist had lift up his head in the Church. Let us enquire into the History of the Church, and antient wri­ters since Christ, and we shall finde Tythes to be Christian divers hundred years be­fore Pope Boniface (who was the first that took upon him the name of Universal Bi­shop, and the chair of Antichrist at Rome) was born.

First, If we examine the Apostles time, Act. 4.34, 35. and times immediately after, there was a community of goods (as we proved before) the converted Christians sold their lands, and brought the money to the Apostles, and then no need, nor indeed power of paying Tythes in the Christian Jewish Church, the Tythes being paid to the Priests amongst the Jews whiles their Synagogues and Priest­hood lasted, as before you heard; and for the Gentiles converted, in those times there was such persecution, that it was best for the Ministers of Christ to live upon the com­mon Treasury among Saints. Tertul. A­pol. cap 3 [...]. He lived about 200 years after Christ. Euseb eccl. hist lib. 2. cap 47. This communi­ty did continue until Tertullian's time, about two hundred years after Christ. All things are common with us (saith Tertullian) praeter uxores, except our Wives; yet this com­munity was chiefly at Jerusalem, and at A­lexandria in Egypt, and at Carthage in A­frica, where Tertullian lived, and some o­ther places where persecution was: And then, in the private meetings of Christians each one give in to the common Treasury [Page 56]what they had laid by them in store for the maintenance of the Saints, 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. Act. 24.17 Rom. 15.26, 27. 2 Cor. 11.9. as St. Paul di­rected, 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. This Paul brought from the Gentiles to the Jews; and with­out question the Apostle Paul had his part, for he himself testifieth, that the Brethren which came from Macedonia supplied his want, and others also were supplied out of the common treasury. Thus for those times of danger and persecution, as it was in the Apostles days, few (in comparison) of the multitude being converted, and the Empe­rors being no Christians, The beginning of pet­secution we read Acts 7. and Acts 12, &c. Herod &c. After, Emperor Nero. First of ten persecuting Emperors, &c. Eusebius Eccles Hist lib 2. cap. 25. l. 3. c 1. Tertull. Apol c 1. Marsilius Patavinus Defen. pacis per. 2. c. 15. but pesecutors, it was sufficient they had their lives for a prey, and yet often times these also were taken a­way by cruel tormentors, as the histories of the Church doth witness at full: And then it was no time to demand or receive Tythes of the peo­ple, but to live of the com­mon Treasury, and of lands, and rents of lands and other gifts given to the church for maintenance of Saints, and the Ministers of Christ, who did preach the Gospel unto them, as God stirred up be­leivers hearts to give them, out of consci­ence that they were bound to maintain the Ministers of Christ, and that those who preached the Gospel should live of the Gospel, 1 Cor. 9.14 as the Apostle Paul witnessed it was the Ordinance of Christ. But when com­munity of goods was ended, at least in that manner as it was used in the primitive [Page 57]times; And when the Church had more quiet rest from persecution, and the Mini­sters of Christ were setled in particular cities and places certain, to abide as Pastors and Teachers over particular congregations; then we read Lands and Tythes setled and given to the Church, not as out of Frank­almoign or Free alms, but as Gods due right, and the maintenance of the Ministers of Christ who did labor in the Word and Doctrine. The Glebe-lands and Tythes were part of that double honor which S. Paul wit­nesseth the Ministers of Christ are worthy of, 1 Tim. 5.17.

This truth we may find witnessed in an­tient Histories, and in the primitive Fathers of the Church.

First for History, we will begin with our own British Antiquities, remembred by that learned Mr. Pryn in his Gospel-plea, proving that the present opposition against Tythes proceeds not from any real grounds of conscience, but base covetousness, Mr. Prynne his Gospel plea, p. 123. cites John Capgrave in vila Joseph. Christ. Gla­stoniens. Vincent. spect. Hist. lib. 23 cap. 147. cited by Doctor Ʋsher. Brit Eccles. An­tiq. cap. 2. pag. 973. &c. carnal policie, &c. and a Jesuitical and Anabap­tistical design to subvert our Ministers, Church and Religion.

Now Mr. Pryn, out of that godly, learned and worthy Dr. Ʋsher relates, that Ioseph of Arimathea (who with Nicodemus took care for the burial of our Saviour in a new se­pulchre where never man was laid, as S. John witnesseth Joh. 19 21.) This Joseph came with some others into England about the year of Christ Forty eight, and preached the Gospel to Arniragus a British King (a [Page 58]valiant Prince, Dr. Pride­aun in Rom. Tribun. pag. 289. called Hector of Britain, who embraced the Christian faith; and under­standing the purity of their doctrine and holiness of their conversation, he gave (as the History relates) twelve Hides of land in the Isles of Avalon, since called Glastenbury, in Somersetshire, where they built the first Church, made (as the Historian speaks) of Wattle and Reeds, and there they continu­ed together preaching the Gospel, and living upon this their Glebe (now of great value, saith Mr. Pryn) which was afterwards con­firmed to them, and the Ministers of the Gospel there succeeding them, both by Ma­rius and Coilus, next successors to Arniragus, whom also they instructed in the Christian religion. Thus was Ministers maintenance taken care of by that Christian King here, about forty eight years after Christ. Dr. Ʋsher Brit. Eccles. Antiq. Spelmanni Conc. pag. 12. cited by Mr. Prynne his Gospel plea. pag. 124 The Poet thus: Lucius in Christum credit, Chri­stoque dica­tos Ecclesias dotat, distin­ctas ordinat urbes &c.

Again, about the year of Christ One hundred seventy six, within two hundred years after Christ, we read of Lucius our King of Britain, that being converted to the Christian faith by Faganus and Damianus, Preachers of the Gospel, sent to him at his request by Elutherius Bishop of Rome, he builded and endowed Churches through his Dominions with Glebe-lands and Tythes, and this for the maintenance of the Mini­sters of Christ, long before Pope or Popery was set up in the world. And this after­wards the British and Saxon Kings confirm­ed and enacted more fully.

I may tell you, that about three hundred years after Christ, the Christians being here [Page 59]and elswhere restored to peace, Gild [...]s. Dr. Ʋshers Brit. Eccles. Antiq. pag. 193. Spel­Conc. p. 36. 45. Cited by Mr. Prynne. and freed from persecution by Constantine the Great (who was born in England) the first Chri­stan Emperor, they began to build and repair those Churches or Meeting-places the Emperor Dioclesian and other persecu­tors had rased to the ground; And then were Churches endowed, and Ministers maintained by Tythes, as well as Glebe-lands; witness the antient Writers and Fathers of the Church, then and before those times: And this long before Pope or Popery, and Antichrist of Rome, was stiled Universal Bishop, and declared Antichrist in the Church.

I might give you a catalogue of Godly men from those times almost to these very days, who witnessed Tythes to be Gods right and due by Divine right to the Ministers of the Gospel. I will name but a few: And first I begin with Irenaeus, Iren. lib. 4. cap. 20. who lived about one hundred and eighty years after Christ; and he tells us, that the Apostles (and so the Ministers of Christ) are the Lords Priests that serve at the Altar, 1 Cor. 9.13, 14. that must eat the Lords part, that must have the substance of the Levites, not of gift, but of right: Of them spake Moses. And what was the principal substance of which the Levites did live, but the Tythes which God gave to Levi for his fervice in the tabernacle? Num. i8.2i. Therefore certain­ly Irenaeus witnesseth what was due of right to the Ministers of the Gospel in his time; and this was Tythes.

Again, Origen who lived about two hun­dred [Page 60]years after Christ, Sed & in novo Testa mento simi­liter vene­rabilis est decas &c. in his Homilies upon Genesis (as in other places) he declareth his judgment concerning Tythes: But also in the New Testament (saith he) the Tenth is venerable; And because there is one Author of all, one fountain, one beginning, even Christ, therefore the people pay Tythes to the Ministers of Christ. Thus you see in Origen's time, within two hundred years after Christ, Tythes were esteemed venerable in the New Testament, as well as in the Old, and the Christians paid Tythes as of old; And this was four hundred years before the Anti­christ of Rome was risen up in the Church, or made himself manifest in the world: Tythes were not then Antichristian nor Popish, (as the Quakers, Anabaptistical Can and others would make men believe.)

Thirdly; Cyprian de unit. eccles. Cyprian who lived about two hundred and fifty years after Christ. They did then (viz. in the primitive times) sell their houses and lands, and laid the money down at the Apostles feet for the use of the Church, laying up treasure in heaven: But now (saith he) De patrimonio nec decimas damus, We do not so much as give the Tenth of our patrimony to God▪ The Father reproveth the Christians for coming short of the Jews in giving God his right.

But some Quaker or Anabaptist will object, Object. This sheweth rather that Tythes were not due, or not paid in those times of Cyprian.

I answer, Answ. Mal. 3.6, 7. That is not so: For you may read Mal. 3. that the Lord reproveth the Jews for not paying of their tythes, and [Page 61]tells them they were robbers of God, guilty of that odious sin of sacrilege: Ye have rob­bed me, saith the Lord, and ye say, wherein? In tythes and offerings: but ye are cursed with a curse, for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Doth this prove that Tythes were not due then by the law of God, or that none were then paid in that Nation? Certainly no, but rather the contrary, that they were due by Gods law, yea that they were the Lords, and that those whosoever kept them back, they were thieves and rob­bers then, as they are now in the times of the Gospel? Tythes certainly were due by Divine right in S. Cyprian's judgment, which was long before the days of the Pope or Papacie, or that Antichrist of Rome in the world,

Fourthly, Hilar lib. explan. in Mat. c. 24. Hilary who lived about three hundred and fifty years after that, in his book of Explanation upon Matthew: Be­cause the Law (saith he) prescribes the tything. of Mint and Annis, the tything of every herb was not to be omitted for the example of future times. For this cause, in Hilary's judgment, Christ doth not forbid, but approve of tythes in the New Testament.

Fifthly, Gregory Nazianzen, Greg Naz. Orat 5. who lived about three hundred and seventy years after Christ: Christ (saith he is called Mel­chisedec, as receiving tythes; And if Christ receive tythes, it must be by his Ministers, and this must be by right from Christ. Thus doth this Father declare tythes as due to Christ and his Ministers in the New Testament.

Sixthly, Amb. ser. 34 in Feria 3. post prim. dominicam quadrages. Holy Ambrose that famous Bishop of Millaine, who lived about three hun­dred years after Christ. Quia de omni sub­stantia quam Deus hominibus donat decimam partem sibi servavit, &c. Because of all the substance which God hath given to man, he hath reserved a tenth part to himself; therefore it is not lawful for man to retain that, which he hath reserved. God (saith he) hath given to thee nine parts, and if thou shalt not give to God the Tenth part, God may take away from thee the nine parts. And he concludes, He that payeth not the tenth, doth not yet fear God, nor know what is true repentance. This doth witness it was St Ambrose's judgement, that in his time Tythes were due by Divine Right; and this was not four hundred years after Christ, and two hundred years before the Anti­christ of Rome did lift up his head above his brethren; Tythes then were not Antichri­stian, nor popish, as the ignorant Anabap­tists, or popish Quakers teach their Pro­selytes.

Seventhly, St. Hierom, who lived three hundred and ninety years after Christ, two hundred year, In Ecclesia quoque po­pulis intel­ligite qui­bus praecep­rum est non solum deci­mas dare, sed & vendere omnia & dare pauperibus, &c. Quod qui non fe­cerit, Deum fraudare & Dominum supplantare convincitur, &c. Hierom. in Mal. 3. before the rise of the Romish Antichrist. That which we have spoken (saith he) of the Tythes and first fruits which long ago were given to the Priests and Levites, understand ye also in the people of the Church, to whom it is commanded not onely to give their [Page 63]Tythes and First fruits, but to sell all they have and give it to the poor, &c. which he that shall not do, he is convinced to deceive, and rob, or defraud God, and is subject to the curse, &c. Thus doth this Father also testifie the Divine right of Tythes, or that Tythes are due in the Church of Christ amongst the Gentiles, Jure Divino, by Divine right.

Eighthly, Chrysostom, Si tunc pe­riculum e­rat decimas negligere, perpende quanti nunc istud fuerit. Chrysost. hom. Eph. cap. 2. who lived about three hundred ninety eight years after Christ in his Homilies or Sermons upon Ge­nesis, speaking of the Jews paying their Tythes by Gods command, They did freely and willingly pay one Tythe to the Priests, and another Tythe to the poor; but Christians (saith he) are scarce willing to pay one Tythe. But if it were a danger then to the Jews not to pay their Tythes, consider what it is now, if we neglect it. Thus doth St. Chrysostom plainly witnesse that Tythes are to be paid jure Divino, by Divine right.

Ninthly, in a word, St. August. Hom. 40. inter 50. Hom. blessed Augustine that holy and laborious Father in the Church, who lived about four hundred years after Christ, and two hundred years before Boniface the third took upon him to be uni­versal Bishop, and so Antichrist apparent: This holy man who was a valiant Champi­on of Christ to defend the Faith of the Go­spel, Jud. v. 4: the old Faith that was once delivered to the Saints. In his forty eighth Sermon, Majores nostri ideo copiis abundant quia Deo decimas dabant, &c. Mal. 3.6, 7, 8, 9. Our Ancestors (saith he) did therefore abound with plenty, because they gave their Tythe to God, God did bless the [Page 64]nine parts when they gave the tenth. But now (saith the Father) Because Devotions de­crease, Exactions have increased, we will not give the tenth part to God, and now all is taken away; that which Christ cannot have, Caesar will have; what was hoped to be saved in Tythes, is lost in Taxes: Yea, the nine parts are almost gone and tenths and all. This was the sad condition of those times. I may add, That we have many now murmure at the payment of Taxes, but they do not lay to heart the non payment of Tythes; if we rob God of his due, how can we expect God should bless us? If Achan, sacrilegious Achan be in the Camp, how should we not flie be­fore our enemies, as Israel once did be­fore the men of Ai? Josh. 7.1, 2, 3, 4, &c. Let men consider and enquire, whether diminishing of Tythes hath not brought increase of Taxes; whe­ther it may not in Gods just judgement be with us now, as it was in Gods just judge­ment with the people of whom St. Augustine complaines, for their negligent payment of Tythes.

Again, Aug. serm. de tempore, 219. the same Augustine in his 219 Sermon De tempore, he presseth this duty of paying Tythes by divers arguments. If thou wilt not give God the tenth, God will turn thee to the tenth by his curses and judgements. Havock and spoil (saith he) shall be in your treasuries, and in your houses; thus shalt thou give that to the unmerciful Souldier, which thou wouldest not give to Gods Ministers. And in another place he ar­gueth the case from Mal 3. Mal. 3.10. God is always [Page 65]ready to give his blessings, but the perverse­ness of man opposeth; for he would have God give him all things, and he will offer unto God nothing of that whereof God himself is the owner. But what if God should say, The man that I made is mine, the ground that thou til­lest is mine, the seed that thou sowest is mine, the cattel that thou weariest in thy work are mine; the showers, the rain, and the gentle winds are mine; the heat or warmth of the sun is mine; and since all the Elements where­by thou livest are mine, thou that lendest one­ly thy hand, deservest onely the Tythe or Tenth part? Yet because Almighty God doth merci­fully feed us, he bestoweth upon the labourer a most liberal reward for his pains; he giveth him nine parts, and reserveth only the tenth un­to himself, for his service and the mainte­nance of his servants. And I may add to this, What is it but base ingratitude, yea, flat robbery and sacriledge, to deny God the tenth, or that the tenth is due to Christ and his Ministers by Divine right? since God so freely giveth the nine parts, and reserveth only the tenth for himself, whatsoever the Quakers or Anabaptists dare deny. Thus you have St. Augustine's judgement, that Tythes are Gods, and so due to Christ and his Ministers by Divine right; and this was two hundred years before the Pope or An­tichrist of Rome was born.

But I might go on with a long Catalogue of antient Writers to the rising of Anti­christ, yea, and since that Antichrist of Rome did exalt himself, and give evidence from [Page 66]many godly men in several ages, who have witnessed and confirmed by divers ar­guments, the Divine right of Tythes, as due to Christ's faithful Ministers in the Gospel by Divine right.

But I commend those that desire to see many more testimonies, D. Tillesley in his Animad. on M. Sel­dens hist. of Tythes. to that excellent Catalogue composed by learned Dr. Tillesley, wherein he produceth about Threescore witnesses that assert the Divine right of Tythes, or give arguments to that purpose, That they have been, and ought to be so paid. And I might add the judgement of the godly learned of later times: But these before Antichrist's time are sufficient to witness Tythes are not Antichristian, nor any popish invention, whatsoever the Qua­kers, or Anabaptists, or others imagine to the contrary.

But when did Antichrist arise, Object. 1 Joh. 2.18. may some demand? Doth not St. John say, there were many Antichrists in his time? 1 John 2.18.

I answer, It is true, the Apostle doth wit­ness, that there were then many Anti­christs, and so there are now many Anti­christs, many adversaries to Christ and his Ministers now in the world: Those malig­nant Quakers who plot and labor the overthrow of the Gospel established Mi­nistery, what are they but the spawn of Antichrist, Rev. 16.13 and creeping frogs out of the mouth of the Beast, of the Dragon and the false Prophet? But the Apostle in the same Chapter and the same verse, 1 Joh. 2.18. he spake of [Page 67]another Antichrist, that Antichrist; that prin­cipal Antichrist, whom St. Paul describes 2 Thess. 2.3, 4. The man of sin, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is wor­shipped: so that he as God, sitteth in the Temple of God, shewing himself that he is God, or as if he were God; we may say suffering himself by his flatterers to be called God (as some Popes have done) that scarlet co­loured Beast, full of names of Blasphemy, As Jewel against Harding proveth. to whom the ten Kings give their power and strength to fight against the Lamb Christ; as Antichrist, and the whore of Ba­bylon is decyphered, Rev. 17. Rev. 17.1, 2, &c. This Anti­christ did not arise until about six hundred years after Christ. Gregory the Great 600 years after Christ. We read of Gregory the Great who was Bishop of Rome about the year six hundred, that he foretold, whoso­ever he was that should take unto him the name and title of Universal Bishop, he was either Antichristus, or praecursor Antichristi, Antichrist, or the forerunner of Antichrist; and this was fulfilled in his next Successor Boni­face the Third: For when that perempto­ry, proud Centurion Phocas, Phocas kil­led Mauri­tius the Emperor about 600 years after Christ. The papa­cy began, as the great Au­tichrist. had wickedly and treacherously killed his Lord and Master, the Emperor Mauritius; then Boni­face the Third being Bishop of Rome, by the countenance of the Murderer Phocas did take upon him that Antichristian name and title of Universal Bishop. So fulfilling the the Prophesie of Gregory the Great his Pre­decessor. And this pride of papal dignity his successors imbrace as well as he, then la­boring [Page 68]by all means to exalt the Papacy: yet many hundred years after, yea, and to this day God preserved some holy men to preserve the Truth, and to defend Gods right, and the right of his servants. As in the days of Ahab and Jezabel, God had seven thousand in Israel which had not bowed the knee to Baal. Divers Councils confirmed, and good Laws were enacted to maintain the Divine right of tythes: I shall omit the Councils, and give you an antient Law or two for this purpose.

First, King Ethelstan (a King of this land) about nine hundred and thirty years after Christ, by the advice of his Council at that time: I do command all my chief Officers (saith he) in all my Kingdom in the name of the Lord, that first of my own proper estate, they give the tenth to God, as well in my living goods, as in the dead fruits of the earth; and the same he re­quires his Bishops, Aldermen, and others to do. Thus he doth, as out of conscience ac­knowledge Gods due.

And that Law of King Edward the Con­fessor, The Laws of K. Edw. the Confes­cited pag. 224. 1050 years after Christ who lived about a thousand and fifty years after Christ, six hundred years since. De omni decima garba Deo debita est, ideo red­denda, &c. Of all the corn, the tenth sheaf is due to God, and therefore to be paid; And if any one hath a flock of Mares, he is to give the tenth Foal; and if he have but one or two, he shall give for every one a penny; and he that shall have many Kine, he shall give the tenth Calf, and he that hath [Page 69]but one or two, he shall give for every one a half-penny: And he that maketh cheese, let him give God the tenth; and if he make none, then the milk the tenth day; likewise the tenth Lamb, the tenth Fleece, and of Bees the tenth of the profit, and so of lesser Tythes of Boss, Gardens, and other things. And this Law you see doth witness Tythes due to God by divine right, many hundred years since, to let pass Statutes made of later years; but I cannot pass over that of Sir Edward Coke, that learned Judge and famous Oracle of the Law, who affirms, That in the very body of the antient Com­mon Law of England, Tythes are due Jure Divino, by Divine Right, and we have de­clared they were so judged, for the first six hundred years after Christ, and after that again, until the time of King Edward the Confessor, about a thousand and fifty years after Christ, When the Pope would appropriate Tythes to Abbies, ben began the opinion that Tythes were not due by Divine Right. the same opinion conti­nued in the Church. But after that the Popes of Rome began to be more politick, to maintain their own greatness by enlarg­ing the maintenance of their Abbots, Monks and Fryers in the Monasteries of several orders devised to maintain the Popes great ness, not content with those Lands, which out of fair pretence were given to them by men and women religiously, Gratian c. 3 q. 2. Leo 4. Cited by D. Carleton in Tythes examined. and some superstitiously affected, but seeking also to get the Tythes from the particular Parish Ministers, to whom they were antiently setled as their proper right, which was done in part by Dionysius Bishop of Rome, [Page 70]about two hundred and seventy years after Christ, Mr. Han­mer his Cro­nography. pag. 577. Jo: Canne his second voice from the Temple. which was many hundred years before the Council of Lateran or any Popes Decretals for payment of them, to which some would relate this division of Parishes, and the payment of Tythes. But after that the Pope had appropriated Tythes to his Monasteries, and robbed the particular Pa­rishes and their parish Ministers of them, then these new opinions concerning Tythes began to creak out; and the School­men and others to please the Pope, they endeavor to justifie the Popes Sacriledge; for certainly that was a diverting of the Ministers maintenance of Tythes from the original intention and use of them, what­ever men may suppose to the contrary, or the Pope pretend to ustifie himself: Alexander de Hales. 3. part. qu 51. art. 3. Then Alexander De Hales an Englishman and a Schoolman, he affirms tythes to be judicials, and so might more lawfully be disposed of by appropriations to Monasteries. This was about One thousand two hundred and fifty, four hundred years since; The opinion that Tythes were Almes did arise from the abuse of Tythes in Popery, ta­king them from the Ministers to Abbyes Monasterie, &c. and Aquinas en­deavors to the same effect. This is one opi­nion of Rome; but Tythes cannot be judi­cials, for no holy things are judicials: The judicial laws did concern the civil govern­ment of the Jews, but Tythes are holy to the Lord, Levit. 27.32. therefore they can­not be judicials, as the said men devised. And before we noted another later opinion, that Tythes were mere Alms given by the Church, and to Church Ministers, as men were converted to Christian Religion, and [Page 71]Religion more setled in the world. This opinion, say some, was brought in by the Waldenses upon their sight of the abomina­ble abuses of Tythes in the Church of Rome, (if I may call it a Church) the Popes having perverted Tythes from the true use, and turned and abused them to maintain the luxury of lazie Abbots, Monks and un­godly Friers who were full of all abomina­tions. But these good men did not rightly consider the first original, nor the reason which moved godly men to give the Tythes to Gods Ministers, who taught them the Gospel, for their comfortable livelihood and better maintenance. And this was be­cause those holy men which gave their Tythes, were satisfied in Conscience that Tythes were Gods right, his own reserved portion due to Christ as a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec; Gen. 28.32 therefore Jacob vowed to pay Tythes as a duty to Christ for the maintenance of his faithful Ministers: And the abu [...]e of them in Popery could not take away Gods right, nor de­prive Gods faithful Ministers of that com­fortable maintenance which is due to them from Christ for their service to him in preaching of the Gospel. 2 Cor. 5.20. For what else are Gods Ministers, but Christs servants? We are Ambassadors for Christ, and we be­seech you in Christs stead, as if God did be­seech you by us, we pray you in Christs stead that you be reconciled to God; and there­fore may lawfully expect and look for this lawful gain for their labor, every one [Page 70] [...] [Page 71] [...] [Page 72]even in the place where he is, whatsoever Anabaptists or Quakers alleage to the con­trary.

To conclude; A fourth opinion yet later hath been, that Tythes are ceremonial, and that they are to be abolished, and that Mi­nisters that take Tythes, deny Christ to be come in the flesh, and endeavor to setup again Aarons Priesthood and to revive it a­gain: That there is nothing due to Christs Ministers, but they should live in high or rather low poverty, and the like. These are the common cries of our croaking Quakers, who are cunningly (and I believe) some of them ignorantly by the Devil, and Antichrist and his Emissaries, set on to over­throw the Ministers of Christ in England, and the Gospel too, if God suffer them. And thus as Schollers of that most wicked Apostate Emperor Julian, by destroying Tythes and Ministers maintenance, to de­stroy the Ministery it self, that they may more easily remove the Candlestick of the Gospel, and set up the Kingdom of Anti­christ, instead of Christ in the Nation; which God of his mercy keep from us, least Ephe­sus lot be our portion, to lo [...]e both the Gospel, and our lives, estates, and liberties, to some Turkish Tyrant or other Anti­christ, to our sorrows and undoing for ever.

But these men blinded by the spirit of Error, speak they know not what: For what are Ceremonies, but carnal rites, which were enjoyned until the time of Re­formation, as you may read Heb. 9.10. noted [Page 73]before. These the Apostle calls weak and beggerly rudiments which held men in bondage, as the observation of days, and moneths, and times, and years, such sha­dows and ceremonies as were appointed for instruction and teaching men until Christ who is the substance and end of all was come. Now Tythes were not appointed to teach men any thing, but for the main­tenance and livelihood of them that are Teachers, the faithful Preachers of the Gos­pel, and Ministers of Christ. Therefore Tythes are not ceremonies, as the cere­monious Quakers would have them; but the just Temporal outward gain and re­ward for their labor, which the faithful Ministers of Christ may lawfully seek by every man for his labor in his place. As it was with the Levites in Nehemiahs time, I perceived, saith he, Nehe. 13: 10, 11, 12. that the portions of the Levites had not been given them: For the Levites were fled every one to his field. Then contended I with the Rulers, and said, Why is the house of God forsaken? and I gathered them together, and set them in their places. Then brought all Judah the Tythe of the Corn, and new Wine and Oyl into the Treasuries. This was the second Tythe which was to be eaten before the Lord, and of which the Levites were to have part; and when that was kept from them, they fled every man to his field, to his quarter, where they had their houses, and where they taught the people, and where they had the first Tythe to maintain them.

It was lawful for them in that case to seek every man for his gain from his place; and so it is now for the Ministers of Christ, when their just dues are kept from them, they are constrained sometimes to seek (though sore against their will) every man for his just gain in his place where God sets him.

And this they may lawfully do, yea, to desire the help of the Magistrate, if it can­not otherwise be obtained, and this with­out any just blame, whatsoever Quakers or Anabaptists teach their Auditors.

And thus I have sufficiently answered the Objections, pretending, that Tythes are Popish, Antichristian, and Ceremonial, and cleared the contrary at full, if men will not hoodwink themselves, or be wilfully de­ceived by the deceivers.

I shall onely propose and examine some Cases of Conscience, and wish the Anabap­tists, Quakers, and those that take their parts, to enquire into them before they go on any further to oppose Tythes, or take them away from the faithful Ministers of Christ.

And this is to examine throughly upon all that I have writ, A Case of Consci­ence. and is further mani­fested by godly men concerning the Divine Right of Tythes; Whether the taking a­way of Tythes from the faithful Ministers of Christ, be not that abominable sin of Sacriledge, for which God hath not onely threatned, but punished men with fearful plagues and judgments in several ages of the World; as we shall manifest by some [Page 75]examples, before we end this Question.

It may be some will demand, Objection. What is this sin of sacrilege, and of which command­ment of the Law or Gospel is this a breach or transgression? 1 Joh. 3.4. for sin is the transgression of the Law.

I answer, Answer. Sacrilege is a breach of the eighth commandment, Thou shalt not steal; And every theft is sin. But sacrilege is a stealing from God, or a robbing of God, and so a sin of a higher nature then the robbing from any man whatsoever. Sacrilege is as stealing or robbing God of his holy things: Will a man rob God? (saith the Prophet;) yet ye have robbed me, saith the Lord, Mal. 3.6. Mal. 3.6. The taking away of the holy things of God and turning them to mans private use, or to any other use then God hath appointed, this is sacrilege. Now things are said to be Gods, and holy to the Lord two ways, or by a twofold means. First by way of Re­servation, when God reserveth or excepteth them for himself for his own pleasure or service: As God did reserve and except the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Paradise from our first parents; It was Gods reserved part holy to the Lord, and might not be eaten of upon pain of death, Gen. 2.17. And secondly, Levit. 27.30, 31, 32. so are Tythes Gods reserved part, as we proved before they are the Lords, and holy to the Lord, Lev. 27.

2. Again, things may be said to be holy to the Lord by way of consecration: And this first either by God himself to some holy [Page 76]use; Or secondly, by men to God and his service.

First, thus did God consecrate the gold and silver, and vessels of brass and iron which were found in Jericho, these by Gods appointment were consecrate to the Lord: But all the silver and gold, and vessels of brass and iron are consecrated to the Lord, they shall come into the treasury of the Lord, Jos. 6.19.

Secondly, whatsoever is consecrated or devoted unto God by men, that also is holy by consecration unto God. Levit. 27.28. Thus Lev. 27. Notwithstanding no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all things he hath both of man and beast, or of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy to the Lord.

First then, to take away or steal Gods reserved part, was and is sacrilege; As the taking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Gen. 2.17. Mal. 3.6, 7. Gen. 2. and the taking away or stealing of Tythes, Mal. 3. And thus the taking away or stealing of things consecrated by God himself, as the gold and silver of Jericho, is sacrilege, or whatsoever else is given to God by men for his worship or service, or the maintenance thereof, this is sacrilege, for whatsoever is devoted is is holy to the Lord. And the wise man So­lomon guided by the Spirit of God tells us, It is a snare (a deadly snare) to devour that which is holy, Prov. 20.25 or consecrated to God, and after vows to make enquiry. Men cannot give to God, and take away again at their plea­sure, [Page 77]without sacrilege. Act 5.1, [...], 3, 4. &c. This is evident in the example of Ananias and Sapphira Act. 5. First they gave to God the price of their lands, and so the Apostle and the Church did understand them; but they secretly kept back part after they had given it to God and to Christ, and his Church; and this was sacrilege, and for this and their lying they were strucken dead suddenly, as you may read there at full.

And now I desire all these Anabaptists, or Quaking or other adversaries to Tythes, who pretend to conscience, to enquire dili­gently into this case of conscience, and search whether the taking away of Tythes from the right use God hath designed them unto, be not sacrilege in a double respect.

First as being Gods reserved part kept to himself for his worship and service, and for the maintenance of his Ministers to the end of the world, as we have proved at full, and which to take away is declared sacrilege.

Secondly, as Gods consecrated part given by men out of conscience to the Ministers of Christ, both in the primitive times, and in later ages; witnessed both by their Do­nation of, and good Laws enacted for due paiment of Tythes, as we have in part de­clared in those laws of King Ethelstan, and King Edward the Confessor, noted before; And as may appear in the Donation and and Gifts of Constantine the Great, his care for the maintenance of the Ministers of Christ, not only the good Bishops assembled [Page 78]at the great Council at Nice, Euseb. Eccl­de vita Con­stant. lib. 1. cap. Epist. of Constant. to Euseb. B. of C [...]saria in Palestine. Levit. 27.30, 31 The taking away of Tythes is Sacreledge. as witnesseth Eusebius, but of other Ministers and Church­es appointed for the more convenient meet­ings of the people, and furtherance of the Christian faith, as Socrates relateth. And the taking away of Tythes consecrated to God by holy men, given out of conscience and duty to the maintenance of Gods ser­vice, what is it else but sacrilege, except they be redeemed, as Lev. 27. they may? And these consecrations of Tythes, and further manifestations of this truth, that the taking them away is sacrilege, we shall declare by several examples, partly in other, and partly in this our own Na­tion.

First Mr. Mr. Selden in his. Hist. of Tythes. pag. 49. Selden in his History of Tythes tells us, that a perpetual Right of Tythes was consecrated to some Churches by grant or assignment out of such and such lands at the owners pleasure; that is, as he intends it, as voluntary contributions; (this was his new opinion.) But here I cannot but demand, upon what ground was this done? or what was the cause that moved these good religious men instructed in the faith of Christ, to consecrate their Tythes, the tenth part of their increase, to the mainte­nance of the Ministers of Christ? or to what end did they do this? And certainly, if we consult their donations and declarations of their minds, (if we had them written at large) they would witness that they did consecrate their Tythes, as being convinced in conscience they are Gods due and Christs [Page 79]right for the maintenance of his faithful Ministers, who are careful and painful in preaching the Gospel of Christ; not out of any wrong ground or superstitious end, as a will-worship. And therefore the taking them away from God, and the right use and end the Donor gave them, what can it be less then the sin of sacrilege.

And upon this ground and reason I be­lieve was the gift of King Lucius, Lucius king of Britain. Dr. Ʋsher his British Antiq. and his endowment of Churches both with Glebe­lands and Tythes, within or near two hun­dred years after Christ; besides all the pra­ctice of holy men converted to the faith, then, and in succeeding ages. And what other can we conceive of that Donation of Pipin King of France, the son of Charls Martel that Church-robber? certainly out of conscience they were Gods due, and be­longing to the Ministers of the Gospel, he did restore those tythes which he and Charls his father had taken away. Dr. Tilsley his Anim­advers. p. 64, 65, 66. So Dr. Tilsley in his Record of the History of Charls Martels Sacrilege, and Animadversions upon Mr. Selden's History of Tythes, observes. This King Pipin lived about eight hundred years after Christ, Molanus de sanctis Bel­gii. In 18 Octo. bris in vita Monen. and royally gave the tythe he had between Lesche and Ourt to Monon that blessed man, who was slain for his profession of Christ.

But what need I travel beyond sea for proof? That excellent example of King E­thelwolph, the Son of King Egbert (a King of this land of the Saxon race) who brought the Heptarchie or Sevenfold King­dom [Page 100]of the Saxons into a Monarchy; this King Ethelwolph having received the Christi­an Faith, he had by his conquest all the lands in England for his Demesn (as is ac­knowledged by that learned Judge and ju­dicious Lawyer Sir Edward Coke in his Commentary upon Littleton) and confer­red the Tythes of all his Kingdom upon the Church by his Royal Charter, Sir Ed Coke his com. on Little [...]on. Sir H. Spel. com. 85. dated in the year of Christ Eight hundred fifty five, related in these words. King Ethelwolph by the consent of his Prelates and Princes which ruled in England under him in their several Provinces, did enrich the Church of England with Tythes of all his lands, and goods by his Charter Royal, &c. Adding in the end That whoso should increase that gift, God would please to prosper and increase his days: But if any should presume to diminish the same, An item a­gainst Sa­criledge, or sundry Queries concern­ing Tythes printed 1653. that he should be called to an account for it at Gods Judgement seat, &c. And this he did not onely as Lord Paramount, but as Proprietary of the whole land, the Lord and great men having no propiety or estates of permanency, but as accountants to the King whose the whole land was; and yet they also gave their free consents, which the King required, that thereby they might be barred from pleading any Te­nant right; as also to oblige them to stand in the maintenance of Tythes against all pretenders that might come in after-time. Here you see was a free and full donation of all the Tythes of England unto God, and to the Church of Christ for the maintenance [Page 81]of the Gospel and Gospel-Ministery, and this no doubt out of conscience informed by the word of God, that they were due to them by Divine Right.

Now if all the Tythes of England be be God's; First, by reservation as his own proper right; Secondly, God's by dedi­cation and consecration unto him for his service: Rev. 20.12 Then I desire that men would en­quire into the Book of Conscience (which one day shall be opened) and be fully resol­ved whether to take away Tythes from their proper use, for which God and good men did give them, be not horrid Sacriledge, Mal. 3.8. that dreadful sin which subjects men to the wrath and curse of God.

To quicken your meditation upon this case of Conscience (now consciene hath so much liberty) and to move it to look with­in doors, and truly to see if it know its own face; let me mind you of some few exam­ples of Gods direful Judgements against this sin of Sacriledge.

First, Gen. 3.132, 3, 4, 5, &c. We have all cause to remember the sacriledge of our first parents in taking of Gods reserved part, the forbidden tree, for which they were driven out of Paradise, and they and all their posterity subject to death, and the curse of God, yea, Gen. 3.15. all mise­ries in this life and the life to come, had not God given the seed of the woman, Christ our Savior, to break the serpents head, and make our peace with the blood of his cross; Col. 1.20. had not God in his unspeakable love in Christ reconciled us unto himself, as the [Page 82]Apostle speaks, 2 Cor. 5.19 yea, by the death of his, son, Rom, 5.10 without which we were all the children of wrath as well as others, Ephes. 2.3 Eph. 2.3.

Secondly, And what need I rehearse that judgement of God that fell upon sacrilegi­ous Achan, Josh. 7.1, 2, 3, 4, &c. yea that great affliction that fell upon the Army of Israel for Achan's sin? First, the Army of Israel did flie before the men of Ai vers. 4. And Achan, his sons, his daughters, Jos. 24, 25 all he had were stoned with stones, and burnt with fire for that sin.

Thirdly, Sacrilegious Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar his son; 2 Chro. 38.18. Dan. 5.1, 2, 3, &c. the Father took a­way all the consecrated Vessels of the house of God, and brought them to Babylon; and the Son Belshazzar he repented nor of his Fathers sacriledge, but prophaned those holy vessels in his drunken Feasts; and what was his punishment? God smites him on a sudden with trembling terror and amaze­ment, his knees smite one against another, and the joynts of his loyns are loosed, the hand-writing upon the wall witnesseth an end of his life and Kingdom; he was weigh­ed in the ballance and found wanting; and that night was Belshazzar slain, and Darius the Median took the Kingdom. Dan. 5.31.

Fourthly, How sudden and fearful the death of Ananias and Saphira was, Act. 5.1, 2, 3, 4, &c. I rela­ted before.

Fifthly, King Herod committed Sacri­ledge in robbing God of his honor, taking that glory to him him which was due to [Page 83]God; and you may read both his sin and judgement, The Angel of God did strike him that he was eaten of wormes and gave up the ghost, Act. 12. Act. 12.23.

Sixthly, In particular, the sin of Sacri­ledge in taking away of the Tythes, the tenth part which is Gods part, Mal. 3.8, it was to be cursed with a curse, a fearful curse, Mal. 3.

Seventhly, If we proceed to the antient History of the Church and Records of lat­ter times, wherein the acts of Gods provi­dence, and his works of Judgement are registred, we may finde too great a number of sacrilegious persons, and fearful judge­ments to be their portion.

1. I shall onely name that wicked Empe­ror, that Apostate Julian; Socrat. Ecel Hist. lib. 3. cap. 12, & 14, 16, [...]7 [...] & [...]8 cap. Sezomen lib 6. ca. 2. Theod. lib. 3. cap 25. Niceph. lib. 10. cap. 5. Of Diocle­sian it was said, occidit Presbyteros, but of Ju­lian, occidit Presbyteriū, by his Sa­crilege ta­king away their main­t [...]nance. whose enmity against the Christians, and Christian Religi­on (against good Athanasius, who fled Alex­andria, yet said that Julians persecution was but a little cloud that would quickly vanish away:) And his forbidding the Christian children to be brought up in lear­ning, his countenancing of Idolatry, yea the Jews against Christians, his own apo­stacy from the outward profession of the Christian Faith to Paganism, his Sacriledge in spoiling the Christian Churches and taking away Ministers maintenance, to de­stroy the Ministery, God punished with a sudden death in the Persian War, an arrow from an unknown hand pierced through his arm, and stuck in his ribs, and he pul­led out the dart all bloody, and threw it [Page 84]up into the air and cryed out, Vicisti Ga­lilaee! this Julian died an. 367. Now thou hast got the victory, thou Jesus of Galilee! or words to that effect, and so died despe­rately.

2. Of the Sacriledge of Charls Martel, Agobardus de dispens. minis. p. 65 I spake a word before. And Agobardus, who lived about Eight hundred and twenty eight years after Christ; writing of the Emperor Charlemain, he informeth a Counsellor of the great spoil and sacriledge committed, in which not onely Churches goods, but Churches themselves were spoiled and sold, and amongst these Tythes, which Pipin after res [...]ored. But these things were not done by our Emperor (saith he) but by his Prede­cessor, which was Charls Martel, whose Sacriledge was notable, and his end mise­rable.

Again; Prideaux of the Western Franks, pe­riod. 6. Emperor the 8. we read of Arnulphus Neph [...]w to Charls the Fat Emperor, who lived about 880 years after Christ, he was a sacrilegious Prince, rifled the Churches, did much mis­cheif; but God's vengeance overtook his Sacriledge, and he died, some write, of the Lousie disease; some, that he was poisoned, but miserable was his end.

To let pass forein Sacriledge (in Bohe­mia, Palatinate, Germany) and Gods Judge­ments there within memory, ruinating all. And to come nearer home in our own Na­tion: I will but relate some examples of those many, Sir H. Spel. de [...]non Te­merandis I col s [...]is. which are more exactly re­membred by the Son of that noble Knight Sir Henry Spelman in that pithy tract to the Reader hefore his Fathers learned Book, [Page 85]Entituled, Churches not to be violated; per­swading a restitution of Tythes and Impro­priations to the Church.

He first begins with William the Conque­ror, Holl. f. 7, 8. who in the first year of his reign (as he relates it) by his Normans fireth St. Pe­ter's Church in York; and about the eight­teenth year destroyeth about Thirty six Churches in Hampshire, to make his New Forrest, takes their spoil, robs them of Ministers, Tythes and all. Mr. Speed chron. fol. Mr. Camd. 262. About the nineteenth year of his reign, Richard his second, but first beloved son, sporting in his Fathers New Forrest is there strangely killed by the goring of a Stag, (saith Speed) Camden, by a pestilent air. In the twen­tieth year he burnt the City of Monts, and the Church there, and coming too near the flames, his horse leaping breaketh his riders belly, whereof he dyeth miserably, and in a strange manner is hindered his burial, till a composition made for a place, as unwor­thy to be laid near other Christians, who had robbed sacrilegiously so many meeting-places of Gods people. Again, Dan. p. 48. his Grand­child, son of Robert of Normandy, hunting in the New Forrest is struck through the jaws with a bough of a tree, and like Ab­solom found hanging in the thicket of an Oke. His Grandchild William second Son to Robert Duke of Normandy, Speed 621 was made Earl of Flanders, and in a War against his Uncle Henry the first received a small wound in his hand and thereof died, being the last of the Conquerors Grandchildren, by [Page 86]his eldest Son Robert of Normandy. Matth. Pa­ris, 7 3. The Conquerors eldest Son dis-inherited by his Father, is taken prisoner by his Brother Henry the First, Stows Chr. who puts out both his eyes; and after six and twenty years imprison­ment dieth, starved in the Goal at Car­daff.

William Rufus succeeds his Father in his Crown and Curse: Speed, 440. Matth. Pa­ris, 54. A great Stag pas­sing before the King, he said to the Knight, Draw thou Devil. The flying Ar­row went forth, and hitting a­gainst a Tree, ma­king a re­fle [...] side­way through the middle of the Kings heart, kill­ed him dead. Speed, 449. In his first year his No­bles rebel; in his sixth, a great Famine rageth, and such a Mortality, as the quick can scarce bury the dead. About the nineth year he robbeth the Churches; in his thir­teenth year, Sir Walter Tirrel shoots at a Dear in the New Forest, he killeth the King in the same place where a Church stood, who dieth beast-like, not speaking a word. The King dead, his followers leave his body; and the corps laid in a Colliers-cart, drawn by one silly lean Beast (saith the Book) in his passage the Cart brake in foul and filthy ways, leaving his body a miserable spectacle, pitifully goared, and filthily be­mired; so like his Father, he passeth not quietly to his Grave.

And this was the third of the Conquerors issue that was killed in the New Forest; where the Dogs licked the blood of Naboth, there they must lick the blood of Ahab; where the sacriledge was committed, there must be the place of the punishment; as the Relator observeth.

Henry the First, Ma [...]th Pa­ris, 69. Speed, 459 Hollin. 41. the Conquerors fourth Son is his Brothers Successor; he had several children, whereof his eldest William, with [Page 87]his Brother Richard and Sister Mary, in a calm day were drowned by the English shore; himself eating Lampreys, dieth of a Surfeit, and being opened, the stink of his body and brains poyson his Physitian; one other of his Daughters mourns her Vir­ginity in a Nunnery, and dies childless; and in the next Generation his name is forgot, Plantaginet takent the Crown.

Thus in or under Threescore and ten years, the Conquerors Sacriledge is punish­ed with the rooting out of him and his po­sterity from the Nation. Speed 49. The Nor­man time held sixty nine years.

A fearful example [...] I wish James Naylor and his Quaking companions who go about the Nation, prophanely and sacriledgiously crying out, Down with your Idols Temples, with your Steeple-houses, your Houses of Stone; and away with your Priests, your Tythe-takers, would lay this fearful example to heart; yea, and all Anabaptists and others that are of their mindes, and repent of their Sacri­legious designs, least God in his terrible judgment root them out, as he did this Sacrilegious Conqueror, and left him an example to all posterity.

I pass over the Sacriledge and punish­ment of King John, with many others: Hollin. 194 Of Cardinal Wolsey who did rise up from a mean condition to a high estate, Matth Pa­ris, 284. & 684. to be Coun­sellor and Favorite to King Henry the Eighth; and who for his Sacriledge (which I here speak of) did but turn Tythes out of the right channel, and prospered not; after, lost the Kings favor whom he took care to [Page 88]serve more then God, and lost all his estate, and his life and all (as most did judge) poy­soned himself at Leicester, Martin, 304, 306. and died misera­bly, lieth buried at Leicester Abby or Priory. The great memory of his great Sacriledges, is the most he left, but what he lost before. The Relator remembers divers more per­sons punished for Sacriledge. But I pass them over; onely let me not, yea, I cannot forget King Henry the Eighth (who as the Relator speaks) ingrossed Sacriledge and intailed it to his posterity. For the first half of his reign (whiles he was free from Sa­criledge he was honored of his Allies a­broad, loved of his Subjects at home, suc­cessful in his Actions, and at peace as it were with God and man: But after his Sa­criledge (as in disfavor with both) his Sub­jects rebel first in Suffolk, after in Lincoln, Somerset, York-shire, and the Northern parts; and now like Saul, forsaken of God, he falls from one sin to another. I will not relate his sins, nor the judgments of God that followed; Speed, 104. 1629. &c. Sir Henry Spelman, Printed 1646. 35 Hen. 8. but leave the Reader to that Preface to the Reader before mention­ed in that Book of Sir Henry Spelman, which is my Belator out of our own Chronicles; He took divers Wives, which were [...]now to people a Canaan, some of whom he used like a cruel Tyrant; and in the end grow­ing old, entails his Crown upon his chil­dren, and all successively swayed the Scep­ter; but all died childless, and his family ex­tinct, his name not mentioned, but the me­mory of his Sacriledge, and other crimes [Page 89]is revived to his dishonor. His Sacriledge I apply to the taking away of Tythes and Impropriations from the particular Pa­rishes and Ministers of the Gospel, and not restoring them, which the Pope had Sacri­legiously taken away. For the Lands of Monasteries misapplied, I speak not of them, (although it is a question) if they were once given to a holy use, whether it be not Sacriledge to take them from God, if once they were given to God for a good end.

This I cannot observe but with sorrow, That the Parliament then consented to King Henries Sacriledge, hoping it seems, that Tythes and Glebe-Lands would have been better bestowed; but they being once in the Kings hands, to prevent a restitution, he distributes them to the Laity; Speed, 1086. some to Noblemen, some to Gentlemen and others, some he sells, some he exchanges: But as my Relator notes, to little joy of him or his, or of those that have since possessed them: To many men they have been like the Ark amongst the Philistims, bringing a curse instead of a blessing to the pretended owners. Though they have enjoyed them by countenance, and confirmation of Par­liament; yet I would some of them would truly lay to heart, and examine and search for satisfaction in this Case of Conscience, Whether they have not lost more of their estates by these late wars, then ever they or their Ancestors have gained by these Im­propriations, and Impropriate Tythes which they possess, especially in places [Page 90]where there is left no competent mainte­nance for a Minister of the Gospel, to in­struct poor souls in the way to Salvation, and this in so many hundred Parishes where the Parsonages are Impropriate.

There are Parish Churches in England 9284. Cam b Brit. 162, whereof 3845 are Impropriate; and in few of these places is there a sufficient maintenance for an able Godly Minister to preach to the people. And who shall give account for so many Souls at the day of Judgment? I pray God the Parliament and all others may lay it to heart.

I cannot think, without grief, of the Sa­criledge continued and committed in the times of that good Prince, Godwine, 52. King Edward the Sixth; and the sad and [...]ore afflicting hand of God upon those that had their hand in it. Sir Henry Spelman. Some I hope, otherwise good men, I will not name them, but leave the Reader to my Relator in the Book before-mentioned: Nor will I mention the many examples of Gods afflicting hand at least, if not fearful curse upon many others. Some, yea, divers of whom I have known in my memory near Threescore years, to have felt the smart of Gods hand in their Sacri­legious enjoyments, though they had no hand in the Sacriledge, but as they have come to them from their Ancestors or o­thers, who it may be bought them, and it may be thought it lawful, being so setled by Parliament.

I will say nothing of divers Sacrilegious Customs in many Parishes and places of [Page 91]robbing God and his Ministers of what is due to them. I am sure, the custom of sin­ing in this respect, hath taken away the conscience of sin. I should have been glad to have read, that the Reigns of King James and King Charls, and the Parliaments in both their times, had drawn no guilt upon them by neglecting Reformation in these, as well as in other things.

I am sure, one horrid act of Sacrilege was committed in the late Kings days by the plotting and power of the late Arch­bishop of Canterbury, charged against him in the sixth Additional Article by the House of Commons then assembled in Parliament; That whereas divers godly people, who were truly accounted good old Puritans, out of conscience and perswasion that Tythes were due to God for his worship and service, and they were sacrilegiously taken away from the faithful Ministers of particular Parishes, they endeavored by all good means the redeeming of them; yea some religious Noble-minded men did free­ly give and restore Impropriations of great value to the Church again, and others gave great sums of money towards the redeem­ing of them, The Feof­fees were, Four Di­vines, viz. Dr. Gouge, Dr. Sibbs, Mr. Offspring, Mr. Davenport. Four Lawyers. Ralph Eyre. Sam Brown, C. Skirland, John White Esqs John Geering, Richard Davies, George Harwood, Francis Pridges, Citizens. See Canterbury's Doom, by William Prynne Esq p. 386. This un­done Feb. 13. 1632. and put the money into the hands of Honorable Feoffees in trust to buy in Impropriations, and to allow a good allowance for present to a godly Minister; [Page 92]and after a time when the money laid out was received in again by a yearly rent, then to give the whole Impropriation to the Minister of that Parish, and the rest of the money to go on to buy more Impropriati­ons to be laid to the Church again.

And this I know was done in divers places, which would in a short time have redeemed all the Impropriations in the land if it had been continued, and have been a means to have setled a sufficient Main­tenance, and an able godly Minister in every Congregation. But by the late Arch­bishop of Canterbury his project destroyed, lest (as was pretended) Puritan Ministers should fill the places. But how sad his end was for this and other practises proved a­gainst him, is yet fresh in memory: All the politick wisdom in his head, could not keep his head and body together. It is and ought to be grief of spirit to remember, or record these things to posterity.

I shall only leave some Quaere's or Cases of Conscience, to be enquired into and laid to heart of all they may concern, and draw to an end of this Branch and Reply to that false accusation of these Anabaptists, That Tythes are the wages of unrighteousness, and Ministers that take them Antichristian de­ceivers, as in their Answer they declare themselves.

First let all enquire and consider, Quaere 1 or Case of conscience. since as God did take away the posterity of King William the Conqueror, he did also take away the posterity of King Henry the Eight, [Page 93]both guilty of this sin of Sacrilege; Whe­ther this sin was not, or might not be one principal [...]in which provoked God to re­move them and theirs from the Govern­ment of these Nations?

Secondly, Quaere. 2 Since God hath removed King James and King Charls, and their children, from the power of Government; whether their not endeavoring to reform this sin of Sacrilege, might not be one sin and cause amongst others of their removal, and trans­lating of the power from them to the pre­sent Power now in the Land?

Thirdly, Quaere. 3 Whether the Honorable Parlia­ments since that Parliament in the time of King Henry the Eight, when this Sacrilege was chiefly committed, and the Popes Sa­crilege in part justified by their giving con­sent to King Henry to alienate Impropriate Tythes and Glebe-lands from their proper particular Churches; and especially later Parliaments to whom God gave a greater power to reform this sin of Sacrilege, and to redeem Impropriations, have not been one sinful neglect and cause which pro­voked God to afflict them and the Nation with such ill success of Disagreement among themselves, and with the chief Magistrates of these Nations from time to time; yea to humble them and us with the loss of that power which once God had put into their hands, not only for redeeming Impropri­ations, and setling a sufficient honorable Maintenance for an able godly Ministery throughout the Nation, that so many thou­sand [Page 94]souls might not perish for lack of knowledge; But of the power and oppor­tunity of enacting other good Laws for preservation of Truth, and true peace and prosperity in this Commonwealth, which we have cause to seek the face of God daily for, in and through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Fourthly, Quaere. 4 Whether the great losses that the Nation hath sustained in general, and of those noble and ignoble men in special, who hold Impropriations and Tythes from the Faithful Ministers of Christ (the right owners) may not in part arise from this sin of Sacrilege; for detaining that in their hands, which is Gods reserved part, or Gods consecrated portion for the mainte­nance of his faithful Godly painfull Mini­sters in the service of Christ. I have said enough before, I need speak no more for the justification of the right of Tythes both Divine and Civil, by the Laws of God, and the Law both in former and late Parlia­ments, His High­ness Procl. Novemb. 1659. in the Humble Petition and Advice in the days of the late Lord Protector, and of his Highness since, by his late Procla­mation for encouragement of godly Mini­sters, and enjoying their dues and liberties according to Law

I shall conclude this but with a few words to you John Darker, and Tobias Watsen, and to the Thirty Congregations (whose Faith you sent me) and which you would pretend to be of your opini­ons.

Friends, I desire you to consider what is professed by them in the Fifty eighth Secti­on, That it is the good pleasure of God which hath given gifts of his grace to the Saints or Church of God, that some of the gifted men should be appointed or set apart to attend upon the preaching of the Word, &c.

And Section Fifty nine, A book intituled, The Faith and practise of Thirty Congrega­tions, prin­ted, 1651. p. 50. sect. 58, 59, 60. That it is the will of God, that those which are appointed so to spend their labors in teaching or exhorting in the knowledge of God to their edification, and consolation, ought to have maintenance of those that receive spiritual food by them.

You say, They ought to have maintenance; certainly, then it is the peoples duty to maintain them, by your own confession, o­therwise how can you say they ought to have maintenance? And if they ought to have maintenance, why not Tythes, ap­pointed by God himself, and approved both before and since the coming of Christ, and in the Church of God, yea, by Christ him­self (as I have proved at large) as well as any other maintenance of Charity or Alms, as you or they would pretend in their next Section? And if they be appointed or set apart to attend upon the preaching of the word (as they say in the Fifty eighth Secti­on) Then how ought they to labor with their hands, that they may not be over­chargeable, as they say in Section Sixty, and for which they alleadge 1 Cor. 4.12. St. Paul's practise in a time of persecution and extreme necessity.

This they seem to bring in by head and [Page 96]shoulders to justifie the preaching of labor­ers, men of Mechanick Trades, Taylors, and Carpenters, Smiths and Tinkers, and of Mercers and Bakers, and other such like: But if you or they had con­sulted the same Apostle, in the same E­pistle, Chapter 9. Verse 6, 7. you might have learned that both Paul and Bar­nabas had power to forbear working. It was not any Ordinance of Christ, that they or any other Minister of Jesus Christ should work with their hands to main­tain themselves or get a livelihood, but that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel, as the Apostle testi­fieth, 1 Cor. 9.18. I let pass divers Errors in that Declaration of their Faith, too long to trouble the Reader with. I shall conclude this with prayer to God, that the Lord would open the eyes both of you and them, to see your error and sin in de­parting from, or at least, continuing your forsaking of our Reformed and Reform­ing Congregations, making Rents and Schisms in the Churches of Christ, and giving advantage to the common enemy to destroy the godly party, either amongst us or your selves: For although you are too full of error, yet I dare not think but some who are not satisfied with the pra­ctise of Infant Baptism, may yet be mem­bers of Christ, though sick with error, and such as stand in great need of healing by the Sun of Righteousness, who will arise to them that fear his name, with heal­ing [Page 97]in his wings. Mal. 4.2. For such as are of Anti­christian, persecuting spirits against the god­ly, faithful Ministers of Christ in England, who have and do receive Tythes, such as forsake our Churches, and hate our Mini­sters because they receive Tythes; I con­ceive they are more of Antichrist then Christ, Mat. 16. and are instruments in the hand of Satan, rather to destroy, then further the Gospel of the Lord Jesus.

Thus I have done with the greatest ground (as I conceive) of your separation or most cried out against) this is Ministers main­tenance by Tythes, or any constrained cer­tain maintenance, which too many desire may be taken away, that they might more easily cast off the Ministery it self.

Mr. Bourns Reply.

To this I must needs Reply, You do us ma­nifest wrong, and it is a false and scandalous aspersion, as if none did or could preach without Tythes, or forced maintenance; It is well known, that many of us (and I my self) did not leave off preaching of the Go­spel, when we had no Tythes nor forced maintenance; yet both publikely, Mal. [...].6. and from house to house have endeavored to convert sinners, and to prepare Saints in grace for glory. But the Lord himself thought Tythes the fittest way amongst his people of old: And although I grant they may be re­deemed, [Page 98]yet I am confident of a Divine right in Tythes due to the Ministers of Christ in the Gospel; and to take them a­way without full redemption, is a sin no less then Sacriledge, accursed of God, as I have proved at large. I leave this to the blessing of God, and the wisdom of the Parliament to consider of, and order by the councel and direction of Gods spirit, for the glory of God and true heavenly good of the Nation; into which I pray God to guide them.

Mr. Bourn's answer.

FOr answer: I desire that this Writer would without Equivocation declare tru­ly, whether he desires only to have the maintenance of Ministers by Tythes taken a­way, [Page 98]or the established known godly Ministers in England also, or both to be removed out of the Nation? If he desires to have Tythes only taken away: then I desire you Country­men and Farmers to consider whether the payment of money may not prove worse to most of you than payment of Tythes, money being oftentimes hard to be gotten? or if in money, to have it gathered by State-Officers, and pay'd into a common Treasury.

Secondly, If he desire the Ministry it self to be destroyed, and your Teachers removed into corners, and that instead of them you must be content to be taught by Taylors, and Tinkers, Mercers, Bakers boyes, and Carpen­ters, and instead of being fed with Heaven­ly manna, the truth of the Gospel, to be choa­ked with error and heresie, and lead by blind guides to the pit of Destruction; if so, then is it not more profit for you to pay your Tythes, than to endanger the loss of your pretious Souls by false Teachers? for what is a man profited to win the whole world, and to lose his own soul, saith our Saviour, Mat. 16.26.

Mr. Bourn's Answer.

I answer, if Anthony Peirson, or the Reader please to read over again my Justification of Ministers maintenance by Tythes, he may find something which he hath not touched, several places of Scripture opened to prove the Divine Right of Tythes to the Ministers of Christ, and divers arguments pressed, to which he hath said nothing, or nothing to the purpose.

Again, for his History in general: It is a rule, that Rectum est index sui & obliqui, that which is streight is a declarer both of its own rectitude, and of that which is crooked; It is so here, a true History of Tythes will easily discover a false, if the Reader please to read my History of Tythes, in which it is manifest they are the Lords portion, and reserved-part for the maintenance of his Ministers, both be­fore and since the coming of Christ; and so Tythes proved to be due by Divine Right; and to compare it with his History, in which he endeavours to shew that Tythes, and Mi­nisters maintenance, both before and since Christ, were but arbitrary Devotions, and meer Alms given at mens pleasure to the poor (as in divers places he affirms) I conceive the falsehood of his opinion will soon appear, and I need say no more for answer, it will be evi­dent that his Faith depends but upon humane testimony, and a view of some mens practises, without considering the grounds and Reasons of their payment of Tythes, which was consci­ence enlightened that they were Gods due, and paid upon that account, both by Abra­ham, Jacob, and the Jewish Nation, yea by Gentiles before, and by Christians converted to the Faith since Christ his Ascention to Glo­ry.

But although this be sufficient to answer, yet according to my short time (the Printer staying for my paper) I shall give you some further Animadversions upon his History of Tythes.

Mr. Bourn's answer.

First, you may observe he begins his Hi­story of Tythes with Levie, as if no mention of Tythes had been in Scripture before Mo­ses and Levie, when as if you read, Gen. 14.20. and Gen. 28.22. you may find that both Abraham pay'd Tythes to Melchizedeck, (not as a free gift from him, but as Gods Right, and an owning of him to be Gods High Priest, and Tythes Gods reserved part, as I have proved at large in my History of Tythes; and upon this account Jacob vowed to pay Tythes, not as a will worship, odious to God, Col. 2.22. and spoken against by the Spirit of God in that holy Apostle.

Mr. Bourn's Answer.

For answer: if the Reader consult those places of Scripture, he shall find Deut. 18.3, 4. this shall be the Priests due from the people; both for Offerings, and First-fruits: and if due, then not at the peoples devotion as Peirson would infer, because a direct quantity is not expressed; if the First-fruits were a du­ty, then not an arbitrary devotion. And here [Page 101]I pray you consider what Doctrines we are like to have of his collection, when he endea­vours to draw a false Doctrine from the first Scripture he names, and to lay this as a Foun­dation to build his opinion, That Tythes and Ministers maintenance are but Devotions ar­bitrary, to be given or not given at mens pleasure, as it God had no right in them, which is the drift of his History.

And if you read that other Text, Ezek. 45.13. the direct part what shall be offered is expressed: and what ground is there then of gathering a Doctrine hence of arbitrary de­votion, as if no command from God, but at mens pleasure; as he would have Tythes to be: the Lord open his eyes to see his Error.

I pass over what he hath said, little to this purpose.

Mr. Bourn's answer.

For answer, I grant this to be so in those Primitive times, as Acts 4.31. &c. when [Page 102]they had all things common, then the Apo­stles and Ministers of Christ had their part, yea when men sold their Lands, and brought their money into the common Treasury of the Church, they laid it down at the Apo­stles feet: Read my Book, p. 55. then was no need to desire Tythes, or any setled maintenance, they ha­ving no certain dwelling-places. But I have answered this at full in my Defence of Tythes, to which I desire the Reader to look back, where he may find full satisfaction; this community of Goods in those times of neces­sity and danger, doth nothing hinder, but that when better times came, and Churches were setled, the Duty of Tythes might be re­quired and paid as it was in after ages, as I have evidently manifested: and this as a due by Divine Right to the Ministers of Christ.

Mr. Bourn's Answer.

I grant that in those times of persecution it was the best way for Ministers to live, and for the Church, they having many poor to main­tain of the common treasury; Justifica­tion of Tythes, p. 55, 56. but this will nothing disprove the Divine right of Tythes to be paid to Gods Ministers, as it was when times of persecution were ended, as I have [Page 103]proved at large in my Justification of Tythes,

Mr. Bourn's Answer.

I answer: for that direction of Christ, Mat. 10.7, 8. Freely you have received, freely give: this relates to that power of working miracles, of healing the Sick, cleansing the Leapers, raising the Dead; for these freely you have received, freely give. But for preaching of the Gospel, Christ when he sent his Apostles, he giveth them no provision, yea wisheth them to take none, but to receive and expect their maintenance from their hands to whom they brought the Gospel, and this out of Christ his part which was in their hands: for we must not think that Christ would have his Labourers paid out of other mens estates, but out of his own, and out of that they must be payed, for saith he, The Labourer is worthy of his meat, Mat. 10.8, 9, 10. and worthy of his reward, Luke 10.7. &c. and this to be paid out of Christs own reserved part, not out of other mens goods; as if Christ had said, fear not provisions, for the people to whom I send you, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, they have my goods in their hand, (viz. the Tenth of every encrease, or else the price of the redemption of it,) and I will rule their hearts to pay You my Labourers out of my part in their hands for your labour in my work: This not as a free benevolence, but as a duty due to me and to you, Luke 10.7. for it is my Ordinance that those that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel, 1 Cor. 9.14. as af­terward [Page 104]the Apostle Paul did witness; so that this preaching doth nothing hinder the Di­vine right of Tythes, as in my Defence (to which I refer the Reader) I have declared at large.

Our Friend Anthony Peirson brings in divers more humane testimonies to the same purpose, to prove (as he would have it) no right of Tythes, nor setled maintenance to be given as a due for the Ministers of the Gospel, but to live of the benevolence and charity of the peole together with the poor.

Mr. Bourn's answer.

If I grant this, as I may, yet this hinders not that Tythes were Gods right in all Ages; but this was still a time when the Church was subject to persecution and dangers, and many poor, and so a necessity to live in Socie­ties, as the people of God did in those dayes; a full answer you have in my Justification of Tythes to belong to Christ and his Ministers, Hom. 23. ad Epist. 1. a Cor. [...] in cap. 16 Ambros. Tom. 5. Serm. in Ascenti Domini. by Divine right, and yet all places were not in like condition, even in those times.

Now Sir, you proceed forward, and bring in Hierom and Chrysostome, (who you say) did press payment of Tythes; and Ambrose Bishop of Millan, about the year 400 after [Page 105]Christ, pressed the payment of Tythes.

Mr. Bourn's answer.

Thus you have now alledged divers Anti­ents who do not only declare for payment of tythes,but for payment of them by Divine right, or as a duty; Gregory's judgement was that the tenth of all was to be given to God, as many others; and truly any man that rightly considers the Histories of the Church, and what is written by the Antients, may see clearly, that howsoever in the beginning and dangerous times, tythes were not pressed for weighty Reasons, as I have shewed in my Defence, page 44, yet so soon as ever the Church came to a settlement, and they were more free from persecution, tythes were prea­ched, and pressed, and payed as a duty, not as alms, or liberal devotions as you would make men believe.

Mr. Bourn's answer.

First, how know you that these antient Fa­thers took their ground out of the Law, that Tythes ought to be pay'd, as if it had been [Page 106]the Levitical Law only? why might they not take their ground long before that Law, even from that payment of Tythes by Abra­ham to Melchizedeck the Priest of the most high God, and from Jacobs Vow, and what Christ spake, and his Apostles writ in the Gospel, and Epistles, especially that to the Hebrews, chap. 7. I am sure some of the Fa­thers do alledge arguments from divers of these, See my Book, pag. 59, 60, 61, 62, &c. and so it might be from a light to the conscience, that Tythes are Gods part, and Christs right for maintenance of his wor­ship and service, & hence might press the pay­ment of them. For what you say, that the Doctrine was not received till the 800 year, certain it doth not appear, but the contrary, for many Writers before that time did assert the payment of Tythes, and that as a due, yea by Divine right, as I have declared in my De­fence of Tythes; read my Book, with Doctor Slater, and Doctor Tilseley his Animadversions on Mr. Seldens History, and others.

Mr. Bourn's answer.

I answer: that before that time there were amongst the people divers things out of order; it was some reason till Ministers of [Page 107]the Gospel were setled, people should have more liberty to pay their Tythes where they pleased; but yet they were paid, and due to be paid long before that time, and that Law was good by whomsoever it was made, That Tythes should be payed to the Church where Ministers were setled to preach the Gospel, or to be pay'd to them for their labour, in the Word and Doctrine, which was most agreea­ble to the Divine Institution.

Mr. Bourn's answer.

For answer: I desire the Reader to observe, he relates indeed the story of Joseph Arimathea coming into Brittain to preach the Gospel, but he leaveth out the History of that gift of Gleab lands in those dayes at Glassenbury, for the maintenance of them that preached the Gospel: yet he confesseth that when the peo­ple were converted to the Faith, then they pressed the payment of Tythes: this saith he, about 600 years after Christ; and yet he saith they began to preach the old Romish Doctrine, that Tythes ought to be pay'd. I would ask first, how old the doctrine of pay­ment [Page 108]of Tythes was at Rome 600 years after Christ? if it was an old doctrine within 600 years after Christ, certain then it was in or near the Primitive times, as indeed it was in some places long before the Pope, or the uni­versal Bishop of Rome was born, for Origen speaks of the payment of Tythes, who lived near the Primitive times about 200 after Christ, as I have shewed in my Justification of Tythes, read page 59, 60.

Secondly, I demand, why old Ro­mish Doctrine? for Hierom was not Bishop of Rome, and yet he approveth of Tythes; and Augustine Bishop of Hippo in Alexandria, and divers in other places in those times writ of Tythes as due to be paid, and due by divine Right; but he would fain make Tythes Romish, that he might make them odious; though they were thought by the Lord the best way to maintain his servants for his worship and service, and indeed are Gods right, and Christs right for the maintenance of his Ministers to the end of the world.

Mr. Bourn's answer.

To which I answer, that even this making Laws for Tythes, and that when Judgements of God were upon the Land, this certainly doth witness evidently that they were perswaded in their consciences that Tythes were due to God and his servants, and the detaining of them was a sin, and therefore they made Decrees and Laws to pay them to God, as due to him and his servants by divine right, for had they not believed that the payment of Tythes had been well pleasing to God, they would never in that time have made Laws that Tythes should be pay'd to God for his servants.

Mr. Bourn's answer.

I answer still, though there was some er­rour in king Stephen, yet this doth witnesse that there was a Conscience in him, perswa­ded that Tythes were Gods due; and there­fore he confirms Tythes, as other Princes upon the same ground had done before him.

Mr. Bourn's answer.

Let the Reader observe, Wickliff doth not complain that Tythes were paid, but to such prophane & wicked men; still this doth argue a due of Tythes to be paid, and that for Gods worship, whatsoever Anthony saith to the con­trary.

Mr. Bourn's answer.

To this I desire the Reader if he can to read the History in the Book of Martyrs, page 669, 670, &c. and you cannot find that they or any other were burned, or suffe­red flames because they spake against Tythes, for there were other Articles which were more fundamental, for which they suffered death: had there been nothing else but Tythes, no doubt they would not have [Page 111]laid down their lives against Tythes, as An­thony Peirson would make men believe. Again particular mens opinions do not determine the right which God hath in the world, and the encrease of the earth for the maintenance of his worship and service; the Scripture-proof is sufficient to witness perpetuity of Tythes. Anthony would handle the Question whether Tythes be due or not.

Mr. Bourn's answer.

I answer: if tythes be due to the Mini­sters of the Gospel by divine Right (as I have proved) these several claims of several men do not infringe, nor can these Laws or Can­nons of Popes hinder Christ or his Mini­sters from challenging tythes as Gods reser­ved part for his worship and service. I may say the same for the Laws of King Henry the Eight, and since, Edward the 6. Queen Eli­zabeth; thus we bless God for these good Laws, and confirmations, and settlement of the paiment of tythes to the Ministers of the Gospel by so many Honourable Parliaments, for whom we pray that God will guide them still in his waies for the maintenance of his worship and service, and for the good of the Common-wealth, yet this will not therefore conclude against the Divine right of tythes, good Parliaments and godly men have been, and are more willing to pay and establish the paiment of tythes, because they [Page 112]are perswaded a godly Ministry ought to be maintained and countenanced, and this way of tythes is a way which God himself hath pre­scribed of old, and the Kingdoms that have received the Gospel, have approved and pra­ctised in several ages of the world; this still confirms the divine right of tythes.

I let pass his seeming Answers to Objecti­ons, as to Abrahams paiment, and Melchize­decks receiving of tythes before Levies Priest­hood, page 17, 18, 20, &c. and the rest, I have given answer to that in my Justification of Ministers maintenance by tythes, which may satisfie any good man that is not prejudi­ced against the Ministers of Christ, or hath not some self-end in his not being satisfied.

Mr. Bourn's answer.

I answer, though the goods be his own, the Corn, Hay, &c. yet the tenth is not his own, nor ever was, neither theirs or their Fore-fathers, never bought nor sold with the Land, but are Gods reserved part, as we have proved to the full, and they are by right from Gods Law to be tythed, and by the good Laws of the Nation, to which Ministers may lawfully appeal for recovery of their just Rights, Paul did appeal to Caesar for his just defence, Acts 25.1.

Mr. Bourn's Answer.

I answer: there were no tythes given them, as if those that gave them had any right of their own in them originally, they did not give them to God, but restore them to God a­gain, when they had been stollen, and unjust­ly detained from God, and abused, that con­tinuing to be pay'd, they might be for main­tenance to Christs Ministers in times of Re­formation, and this no more than what duty men owe to God, witness our Saviour, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods, Mat. 22.21. for his other Objections page 14. &c. I have an­swered; see my Book.

Mr. Bourn's Answer.

I entreat the Reader to confider here is a testimony of the claim of tythes by the law of God, or divine right; this in antient times. It is no new doctrine then as in my Justification I have declared at large.

Mr. Bourn's answer.

But I answer: it is true, that the Land was ever charged with tythes, but not that the Land is free from tythe, for the Land payeth tythe Hay, and tythe Corn; and the tythe of Cattel is not in respect of the Cattel, but in respect that they feed upon such Lands; there­fore Anthony Peirson is deceived, and tythe neither sold nor bought, therefore must be paid.

Mr. Bourn's answer.

I answer, if prescription be good in Law against a Minister for non-payment of tythes, or of small composition, why may it not be good for a Minister for payment of tythes, whatsoever Anthony Peirson would de­claim, or exclaim to the contrary?

Mr. Bourn's answer.

I answer, this is a conceit of his own, and witnesseth the malignity of his antichristian spirit against the Ministers of Christ, he de­clareth but what he is, and into what conditi­on he would bring the Ministers of Christ Jesus; certainly he is either a Quaker, or [Page 115]possessed with the spirit of Antichrist, or infe­fected with some Jesuite, he discovers so much envy and hatred against the faithful godly Ministers of the Lord Jesus; dost thou expect thanks for this at the Day of Judgement? be­ware of your enmity Anthony, fight not against Christ and his Ministers, but submit to Christ and embrace him and his servants that you perish not, and be wise ye Kings, Psal. 2.11, 12. be learned ye Judges of the earth, serve the Lord with fear, and rejoyce with trembling; kiss the Son lest he be angry, and ye perish in the way, if his wrath be kindled, yea but a little, Blessed are all they that put their trust in him; if those shall receive that dreadful sentence at the last day, Go ye cursed, Mat. 25.41. who have not relieved Christ and his servants; what shall be the pu­nishment of those that seek by all means to rob and spoil the Lord Christ, and his Mini­sters and Ambassadors? the Lord pardon and change your hearts if it be his blessed will.

Mr. Bourn's answer.

I answer: for the Impropriators I cannot defend them, though some consideration is to be had of them; but yet you err in saying the Tythes impropriate, and the Tythes which is still continued for the Ministers of Christ, are alike in the root, for the tythes of Impropriators were alienated by the Pope to his Abbies, and Monasteries, and then again by King Henry the Eight, and by him sold, and there was the root of Impropriate-tythes; but tythes belonging to the Ministers of the Gospel, whom you with a malevolent spirit call Priests, as if they were Popish Priests (which we are not) that so you may make them more odious to the people and Parlia­ment, their tythes I have proved to have a higher Root than Proprietors, even Gods own appointment, even Gods reserved part for his worship, and the maintenance of his Mini­sters who labour in the Word and Doctrine, and are worthy of double honour, of reve­rence, and maintenance; witness the Apostle, 1 Tim. 5.17, 18. whatsoever Anthony Peirson would make men believe, and therefore I cannot but observe that you are so just and charitable to the Impropriators, that they must have some recompence for their tythes; but for the poor Ministers of Jesus Christ, they must be turned off with nothing, for this is the cry of many of you, as if we were thieves and robbers, (as your Generation please to call us) and not Ministers of Jesus Christ.

But let me speak a little further to what you say to the Impropriators; you say the Root is all one; I deny it (as before I did) [Page 117]the tythes of Ministers are more antient many hundred, yea some thousand years before any Impropriate tythes were heard of in the world. Now you would have the Impropria­tors to have some recompence for them, so would I also, but the less because they bought them of such persons as had no right, nor lawful power to sell them; if Anthony Pierson would remember what he saith page 18. the conclusion will be against Impropriators, and all others.

Mr. Bourn's answer.

Now I assume, but tythes are absolutely due by the law of God, as I have proved at full from the holy Scriptures, besides multi­tudes of testimonies witnessing the divine right, both in antient times, and at this day.

Therefore no custome, usage, prescription, or Popish▪ dispensation can acquit from payment of the utmost penny of the tenth part; this conclusion necessarily followeth from Anthony Peirson's premises.

And then first, all prescriptions, compositi­ons, and customs for payment of less than the tenth part, are utterly unlawful, and the de­taining of such tythes must needs be sacriledg for to take or keep away that which is Gods, and belongeth to Christ, and to his Ministers and Ambassadors, is a robbing of God, and sacriledg, against which the Prophet Malachy [Page 118]proclaimed a curse, Mat. 3.6, 7. and promiseth a blessing to the restorers of them It is a lamentable thing that Lay men should receive the tythes, and the people maintain their Ministers to teach (if they will have any.)

Again, if the Tythes be Gods reserved part, and belong to the Ministers of Christ who preach the Gospel to the people, by Divine right (as we have proved out of the Word of God sufficiently) then as Anthony Peirson confesseth, the Popes dispensation, or acquit­ting of any Lands from payment of tythes, was utterly unlawful and sacrilegious, as was all his improper Appropriation, or tythes to Ab­bies, Monasteries, or any such popish inventi­ons, sacrilegious also certainly it was; and was not King Henry the Eight his taking and selling of tythes from the Church sacriledge also? certainly it must needs follow, it was a robbing of God, and of the Mi­nisters of Christ, and so sacriledge: and then is it not sacriledge in them that with­hold them? this God hath witnessed by many examples, his wrath against such as detain them from the faithful Preachers of the Gospel, as I have declared in my Justification of Ministers maintenance by tythes, and as might be proved, by many sad examples of Gods judgements against Sacriledge, both in this and other Nations, therefore it is very good all the Impropriators should part from them, yea upon reasonable considerations, since many bought them as Anthony Peirson intimates, for little or nothing; but it is not that tythes should be taken away from the [Page 119]faithful Ministers of Christ, but restored to them as their just due, both by the law of God, and the most antient laws of the Land. The Lord grant the Parliament may lay these things seriously to heart, and provide a reme­dy, that the danger of Gods curse may be re­moved from the Nation, and Gods blessing be upon them and the people, till Shil [...] the Saviour Christ our Lord come again. Amen. Amen.

Mr. Bourns Reply.

To which I reply, First, Where is your boast of Scripture proof as clear as the Sun at noon-day, without a consequence or illustrati­on, Is not this a consequence? What is ergo else? but I leave the Reader to see your weaknes.

Mr. Bourns Reply.

First, For Reply, These are all Conse­quences still, and not Scripture-proof as clear as the Sun at noon day without a consequence or illustration: Contrary to your vapour at the first. And they are false consequences also; for God doth not require as much of little children to make them Members of the Church, as he doth of men and women of ripe years; and yet they may be Members of the Church of Christ, as no doubt Jeremiah, and John the Baptist and Isaa [...] [...]ere even in their Infancy; yea, and all the elect chil­dren of God to the end of the world, yea, members of the visible Church when they are admitted by Baptism, as Isaac was when he was admitted by Circumcision. A Light frō christ, pr. 1646. But I have answered this long ago in my greater Light from Christ, leading unto Christ, noted before, p. 284, 290, 291. I give a distinction of Church-members.

1. Men and women of ripe years converted to the Faith of Christ, and of these a declara­tion of faith and repentance is needful to a compleat membership in the Church, and to practise those duties Christ requireth in those places of Scripture you have alledged.

2. Children of believing Parents, [...] in the Church, and of these, those duties are not required to be admitted Infant-members of the Church: But when they grow up in the knowledge and faith of Christ, then a de­claration of their faith and repentance is ne­cessary [Page 4]before they be admitted to the Lords Supper, that great and distinguishing Ordi­nance of Christ, in which there is a sweet communion of members with Christ their Head, 1 Cor. 10 16, 17. My Book, pr. 1646. Mr. Mar­shall, pr. 1646. M. Blake pr. 1653. Mr. B [...]x­ter, print. 1656. and one with another. I refer you further to my own Book recited before, and to the labours of so many Learned and Godly men, who have writ of this Subject; to god­ly and learned Mr. Marsha his Sermon for proof of Infant-Baptism, learned and labo­rious Mr. Blak [...]'s Treatise of Birth Priviledge, and Covenant Holinesse of Believers, in ans­wer to Mr. Tombes, Learned and laborious Mr. B [...]xer's [...]lain-Scripture-Proof for Infant-Baptism. [...]r. Cook's Font Uncovered. And the Reformed Churches in their Harmony of Confessions, and Profession of pure and ho­ly Faith, in all the Kingdoms, Nations and Provinces of Europe, Allowed by publick Au­thority, and Imprinted by Tho. Thomas, Printer to the University of Cambridge (1586) now about 72 years since. The Anabaptists Doctrine denying Infant-Baptism, is con­demned, and Infant-Baptism is approved, as lawful in the Churches of Christ.

Thus the Churches of Helvetia, we condemn (say they) the Anabaptists who deny that young Infants born of faithful Parents are to be bapti­zed, for according to the Gospel theirs is the Kingdom of God, and they are written in the Co­venant of God, and why should not the sign be given to them? Thus the Church Reformed in Bohemia confesseth they baptize their children. And the Reformed Church in Bel [...]ia, Commending Baptism, they conclude, [Page 5] Therefore here we do detest the errour of the Anabaptists, who are not content with one only Baptism, and that once received, but do also condemn the Baptism of Infants, yea of those that be born of faithful Parents Thus the Reformed Churches in France. The English Confession. The Reformed Church in Saxony, We baptize Infants because Christ saith, Suffer little children to come to me, for to such pertain­eth the Kingdom of God. And Origen wri­teth upon the sixth to the Romans, that the Church received the custom of Baptizing In­fants from the Apostles, and say they, Many things are written and published in our Churches by which the Anabaptists are refuted. I let pass the Confession of the Reformed Churches of Wittenberge, and others of the same Judgment. By which it is evident that the Opinion of the Anabaptists, then spring­ing out, was condemned in all the Reformed Churches now above threescore and ten years ago: And these are but a spawn of that horrid sect which did work mischief in Germa­ny, and have been long since condemned by the Churches of Christ. And whatsoever is written to the contrary, either by your chief Teachers, or by other your miserable, igno­rant and scribling later Pamphlets, it is al­ready answered or replyed unto by such Reve­rend, Learned and Godly men before menti­ned, and others of our Judgment, and that with sufficient Scripture-proof, and full evi­dences from the voice of the Spirit of God speaking in the holy Scriptures, far better than your false and non following consequences, [Page 6]you have brought against Infant Church-membership and Baptism, although you find fault with us for consequences. Read your best Teachers, and see if you can find one proof or shew of proof against Infant-mem­bership of Believers children, or their Bap­tism, without a Consequence or Illustra­tion.

This is the proof of your writers against it by consequences. Read Mr. Tombes, Mr. Haggar, Mr. Gosnold, and the rest. And if you use consequences against Infant-Baptism, and consequences which will not follow, why may not we use consequences to prove the lawfulnesse of Infant-Baptism? Pr. by J. S. 1657. Read your late friend M^r Gosnold (as honest and learned as any of you) his discourse of the Baptism of water and of the Spirit, read his first Chap­ter to prove a Truth, That water-Baptism is to continue, he proveth by a consequence. That which was once commanded by Jesus Christ, and never repealed by him, is still in force and to continue, but water Baptism was once commanded by Christ and never repealed by him, therefore it is still in force and to continue. Thus I may argue against you for Infant-Baptism.

That which was once commanded by Christ, and never repealed by him is still in force and to continue. But an outward sign and seal of the righteousness of Faith, and priviledge of Church membership was once commanded by Christ and appointed for Believers and their infant-children, Gen. 17.7. viz. circumcision to A­braham, & Isaac at eight daies old, and never [Page 7]repealed by Christ; Therefore a sign and seal of the righteousnesse of Faith, and privi­ledge of Church-membership is still to conti­nue to Believers and their children: And if children must have the same sign with their Parents, then what but Baptism; but you cast off our consequences, though you make bold with them your selves. I urged this argument twelve years since, therefore I leave it off.

Again read John Gosnold his second Chapter, where he labours to prove the man­ner of Baptizing, that it was by dipping the whole body in water, his seeming proof is by consequence.

1. From mens testimony.

And 2. From the nature of the word signi­fying to dip, though the word doth not on­ly signifie to dip, and no Scripture saith that they did dip the whole body in water. And if they had, yet a circumstance in Baptism may as lawfully be changed, as the time of celebration of the Lords Supper was changed, which was a circumstance.

Read his third Chapter, in which if he could, he would prove the subjects of Bap­tism to be grown persons, fitly qualified, and not Infants. His seeming proofs are by con­sequences, and false consequences too, like those it seems you borrowed of him; requi­ring those qualifications for Baptism, all which are only requisite in men and women of ripe years, not of Infant-children of Belie­vers, to admit them to an Infant-membership in the Church. And what are his arguments [Page 8]and answers in his Book, but consequences, not one place of Scripture as clear as the Sun at noon-day; as you boasted in your answer. And if both use consequences, and agree in the use of these, wherfore is there such bitterness of spirit because we cannot agree in Opinion? Where­fore are you so violent to deny us to be Mi­nisters of Christ, to affirm us to be Ministers of Antichrist, and our maintenance Anti­christian, as if you would destroy us and our Calling out of the Nation. If you have such liberty to live [...]uietly in the Land, wherefore do you think us unworthy of it? The Lord heal our breaches, and unite our spirits in Christian love if it be his blessed will.

Mr. Bourns Reply.

For Reply, 1. Do not you make use of Humane Learning your selves? Whence had you your words of Art, Scholastical, Lo­gistical, Sophistical? Had you them by im­mediate revelation, or were taught them by some Apostate Phygellus, 2 Tim. 1.15. that went out from among us? Or did you learn them from Books? certain then this was humane Learning. How came you to so many Ergo's, ten or eleven one after another, was not this by Humane Learning? & do not you make use of humane Learning? How was the Bible translated into our English Tongue? Was it not by men? and do not you read and write as you were taught? Now if you make use of Humane [Page 10]Learning your selves, why are we no Mini­sters because we make use of Humane Learn­ing? Mat. 7.12. Do as you would be done by, and let us have the same liberty you practise your selves; this is fair dealing and Christian-like.

2. Again, do ye find so much fault with us, because we have been at Oxford or Cambridge, It seemeth (I fear) that Oxford and Cam­bridge are great beams in your eyes; you can­not but stumble at the glorious University-Libraries, and fair Colledges, and envy that poor Scholars should by the charity and piety of so many Honourable and Honoured Foun­ders and Benefactors receive maintenance to nourish them in the studies of Humane Learn­ing, as if Divine Learning were not by Gods blessing attained there as well as Humane. I hope you are not like those wicked men, against whom the Palmist prayeth so earnest­ly, Psal 83.8, 9, 10, 11. which said, Let us take to our selves the houses of God in possession, I would not have you nor any other to be of that mind, least that dreadful curse fall upon you or them, which is there mentioned; lest God do unto you as unto the Midianites, to Si­sera and Jabin, who perished at Endor, and became as dung for the earth. But I hope better things of some of you, and such as ac­company salvation, as the Apostle did of those to whom he wrote, Heb. 6.9. though errour for a time hath deceived you. And let me tell you, I deny that humane Learning is a Popish Foundation, except you will make Popery to be as old as Moses, who was [Page 11]brought up with humane learning; for he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, Acts 7.22. and that many hundreds, I may say some thousand of years before there was any antichristian Pope in the world. And blessed Paul the Apostle, was no doubt en­dowed with Humane Learning, as before we have shewed by his skill in the Greek Heathen Poets which he alledgeth; and brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, as him­self confesseth, Acts 22.3. And this Six hun­dred years before that great antichrist the Pope, who first took upon him the proud Title of Universal Bishop did arise. Pope Bo­niface. Read the History of the Church, and you may find it. But why are you so angry at Humane Learn­ing, which as well as you can, you make so much use of your selves, as we have fully proved before.

Why do you charge us that our Church and Ministry are antichristian, and to be se­parated from, because we make some use of Humane Learning, because we make use of some arguments and consequences from holy Scripture to confirm the Truths we maintain; and the ancient Faith once delivered to the Saints we contend for, and to overthrow your errours? What! Is every Church and Ministry builded upon a sandy Pillar and Po­pish Foundation, and to be separated from as antichristian, which maketh use of Humane Learning? Will not this argument prove a­gainst your selves, pull away your sandy pil­lars, and pull down your house and Castle of errours upon your own heads? If it be law­full [Page 12]for you to use Ergo's and consequences, let me give you one. Argum. Take it thus.

No Church or Teacher that stands upon, or maketh use of the sandy pillar or popish foundation of humane learning to uphold their Doctrine and Church, are a true Church of Chirst or true Teachers or members of any Church of Christ, but of antichrist, and to be separated from, as from antichrist, and Baby­lon it self.

But the Church of John D [...]rker and Toby Watson, or at least John and Toby yea many more of their Opinion, as Learned Mr. John Tombes, Mr. Benjamin Cox, Henry Haggar, and John Gosnold, and divers others, yea the thirty Congregations of your Society, no doubt make use of Humane Learning, as is evident in divers of their Books, as I have declared already you do, in your Paper sent to me, witnesse your Terms of art, Conse­quence and Ergo's.

Therefore the Church of John Darker, and To [...]ya [...]atson, of Mr. Tombes, Mr. Cox, Hen­ry Haggar, John Gosnold, and your Thirty Congregations are no true Churches of Christ, nor John, nor To [...]y, nor any of the rest true Teachers of Christ, but antichristian, and to be separated from, as from antichrist and Ba­bylon it self, This is a consequence from your own premises. The first Proposition is yours in substance in your Declaration sent to me of your grounds of separation. The second is evi­dent in your practise, in your paper you sent me, making use of consequences and Latine Ergo's to maintain the practise of your [Page 13]Church, and to oppose ours. And the con­clusion necessarily followes far better than the consequences you bring to prove Infant-chil­dren of believing Parents, no Disciples of Christ, nor members of the Church. For the Universities, G. N. O­rat. 3. the Learned tell us that it was the plot of that wicked Apostate Empe­rour Julian by a publick Edict to put down the Schools where the children of Christians were to be educated, that he might more ea­sily have put down Christianity it self, for which Gods just judgment overtook him, and dying, he cried out that Jesus of Galilee had got the victory, as elsewhere we have noted. Certain it is the design of the subtil Jesuite carried on by Quakers, some Anabaptists, and Familists to cry down Universities, Humane Learning and Ministers, that they might more easily bring us back to the bondage of Popery, blind Superstition, and antichristian Tyranny. And too many weak souls without question are in this the servants of antichrist ignorantly; Job 42.6 which if they understood what they did, would bewail their ignorance, and repent in dust and ashes. But for Humane Learning, we do not make that to be the foundation either of our Church or Ministry, as you falsly accuse us; but the Word of God, and the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, Christ himself being the chief cor­ner stone, upon which the Church is builded. Witnesse Christ himself, Mat. 16.17, 18. and the blessed Apostle Paul, Eph. 2.20. Yet we may tell you it is lawful for us to make use of Humane Learning, and it is necessary for us, [Page 14]since by the confusion of Tongues at Babels building, Gen. 11. we lost those Original Languages of Hebrew and Greek, in which it pleased the holy Ghost the holy Scriptures should be written for our Learning, Rom. 15.4. that we through pati­ence & comfort of them might have hope. And al­though God did miraculously bestow the gift of Tongues to the Apostles and others in the Primitive times, as we read, Acts 2.4. yet that gift is not now obtained without mens teaching, and much labour and industry. And had it not been for humane learning, how could you have had the Holy Bible translated into the English Tongue? or how could you spell, or read, or write English, or have gotten any measure of that knowledge you pretend to have. I will easily grant that if you had been trained up in the Universities, and had as much Learning Divine and Hu­mane, and as much Grace and natural parts and gifts of God, as Gods faithful Ministers have, you might preach as well as we, and as lawfully too, if you had as lawful a Call and Ordination to the ministerial Office, and therefore whatsoever high thoughts you have of your selves, you are but meer intruders and furtherers of the Kingdom of antichrist, & of errours, Mat. 13.25. in stead of Truths, which such Teachers do sow, as the envious man did tares amongst the good wheat of Christ. The Lord open your eyes to see your presumptuous sin if it be his will.

Thus I have said sufficient for Reply to your third sandy Pillar and Popish foundation of Humane Learning, which may much ra­ther [Page 15]be charged upon your selves, as favour­ers of antichrist, The Tri­umph of Learning by R. B. B. D. Fellow of Trin. Col. in Cam. 1653. Mr. Hall Pulpit guarded the 3 E­dition. and many Popish errours broached amongst you by divers of your Soci­ety. But if you would see more to convince you of your erroneous opinion of Humane Learning, and your unlawful practise of preaching at unfit times, and unfit places, to oppose and withdraw from the godly Ser­mons of Gods faithful Ministers, Read those Books of the Advancement and Tri­umph of Learning over Ignorance, and Truth over Falshood, written by Mr. Boreman, and others. And the Pulpit guarded, written by Learned Mr. Hall, occasioned by a dispute with a Nayler, a Baker, a Plow-wright, and a Weaver, publick Preachers, nibled at, but yet not answered, nor can be, to justifie your practices, whatsoever you or any of your com­pany pretend to the contrary.

Mr. Bourns Reply.

For Reply. I cannot but wonder you should dare to speak against the Magistrates sword, since you enjoy such Liberty of Conscience, and such Protection under it. I had thought Tertullus Oration before Felix, might rather have befitted you, Seeing that by thee we en­joy great quietnesse, Acts 24.2, 3. and that very worthy deeds are done unto this Nation by thy Providence, we accept it alwaies and in all places most noble Felix with all thankefulnesse: much more li­ving under Christian Magistrates: A Chri­stian [Page 17]Parliament, and Christian Judges, and Justices, such as have been, and are so tender over, and for truly tender Consciences, and of peaceable spirits, though of different Judge­ments in their Worship of God through Christ Jesus according to the Scriptures. Can you justly desire more than you have, except you would have all in your own power? and if so, then we have cause by your expressions of your minds to fear it would be very much against the Godly-faithful Ministers in Eng­land, and their established Maintenance, both by the Laws of God and the Nation, as we hinted before. But I believe I may guess at your meaning, you are not offended at the Magistrates Sword as it is a defence unto you and your peace; but as the Magistrates (bles­sed be God for it) by their Power defend Us and Our Maintenance by Tythes, accor­ding to the Law and present Government esta­blished; and why I pray you may not we have protection by the Magistrates Sword as well as You? Is this a Peaceable and Chri­stian behaviour to desire and be well-pleased with Liberty of Conscience, and quietness for your selves, and to desire and endeavour the same may be denied unto us? yea to have us denied our setled maintenance by Tythes, and We and our maintenance to be banished the Common-wealth as Antichristian? Is this according to our Saviours rule, Mat. 7.12. to do as you would be done unto? certainly no; this rather discovers a spirit of Antichrist, a persecuting spirit rather than a spirit of love and peace, such as becometh Saints.

But let me reason the case a little with you Is not the office and calling of a Magistrate an Ordinance of God? Rom. 13.1, 2, 3, 4. read Rom. 13. and consider it well; Let every soul [...]e subject to; the higher Powers, for there is no power [...]ut of God, and the Powers that be are ordained of God, and he that resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation; for Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evill. VVilt thou then not be afraid of the Power, do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the Minister of God to thee for good, but if thou do that which is evill, be afraid, for he beareth not the Sword in vain, for he is the Minister of God, a Revenger to exe­cute vengeance upon him that doth evill, where­fore you must needs be subject not only for wrath, but also for Conscience sake.

But your conscience is against the faithful Ministers of God in England, and their maintenance by Tythes, and therefore You cannot be subject; and what if Yours be an erroneous, deluded, deceived conscience? do You not then sin in refusing to give obedi­ence to the Christian Magistrate, and good Laws of the Nation, which require the pay­ment of Tythes? certainly you will confess you do if there be christianity, or conscience, or ingenuity in you; but if you do not, can you well say, why should any Minister appeal un­to, or make use of the Magistrates Sword to compel you to do your duties; are you not free, and have Liberty of Conscience? I an­swer: if it were demanded, would you not [Page 19]have liberty not only from Tythes, but from Taxes also if it were in your power? You will answer as these thirty Congregations, (the Faith of which you sent me) do in the Postscript of that Book, That you do own a Magistratical Power for the governing this our English Nation; You do own it but with a limitation: I say nothing to your limi­tation, I am sure for what I know, you have no reason but to own the present Powers, and to submit and obey the Magistrates, and all other in Authority, when they upon com­plaint do command the payment of Tythes to Ministers according to Law, as in all other lawful commands; and as Magistrates have a lawful power to compel, so the Ministers of Christ may lawfully appeal to them for Ju­stice and Right; and although I would not have any of my Brethren to be contentious for trifles, or small matters, yet it is their duty to defend, and not to lose the just Rights of the Church for succeeding ages, especially in these dayes, when Sacriledge is by so many accounted no sin, as if God had no special right now to any thing in the world, and so men could not rob God of any part of the Creature which is his either by Reservation, or Consecration, for maintenance of his wor­ship and service; but if this were so, why doth St. Paul writing to his converted chri­stian Jews at Rome (such as were called to be Saints, Rom. 1.7.) demand the question, and reason the case with them, Rom. 2.22. Thou that abhorrest Idols, dost thou commit sacriledg? sacriledg sure then might be found to be a sin [Page 20]committed amongst Christians, for such were these to whom St. Paul writ; it is some question what kind of sacriledg the Apostle means: but the Greek word used by the Apo­stle, Rom. 2.22. [...] Sacrilegi­um com­mitto, [...], Proprie [...]st Templa Despolio­ne, Gerh. in Loc. M. Leigh upon the Romans. Calvinus in Rom. Hac rati­one Ovi­dius me­tamorpho. 3. Sacri­legum appellat lycurgum ob con­temptu Bachi sa­cra & in fastes sacrilegos manus quae numen veneris violarant. signifieth to despoil and [...]ob Temples, or to despoil holy things, things consecrated to Divine worship, or maintenance thereof, as if St. Paul had held as good a false Religion as a spoiling Religion, and although Sacri­ledg is not worse, yet it is as bad as Idolatry, as that learned man Mr. Leigh well observes upon the place. And godly learned & judicious Mr. Calvin in his Commentaries, The Apostle (saith he) understandingly opposeth Sacriledg to Idolatry, as a thing of the same kind, (certain­ly both a like odious to God) for Sacriledg is a prophanation of the Divine Majesty, (or of a worship and service) or any thing that be­longeth thereunto. And this saith Mr. Calvin was not unknown to the Ethnick Poets, who called those sacrilegious who contemned the holy things of their Heathen Gods; and what can it be but sacriledg, or a robbing of God, when men violate and take away that which is Gods, reserved by him for the maintenance of his worship and service; for the taking away of that which belongs to God for the maintenance of his worship, certainly is a sin which the Magistrate may take notice of as well as other: especially when as it is a setled maintenance by the Laws of the Land, as well as by the law of God; and certainly the Ministers of Christ may lawfully appeal to [Page 21]the christi [...]n Magistrates for Justice, as well as the blessed Apostle Paul did appeal to Caesar (a Heathen Emperour) against his unjust adversaries, as you may read, Acts 25.10, 11. I stand at Caesars Judgement-seat, where I ought to be judged; to the Jews I have done no wrong, I appeal unto Caesar. I might shew you at large how good Kings and Magistrates have comforted and encouraged the Prophets of God: The Levites they taught the people the good-knowledg of God before Christ, witness good King Hezekiah, the 2 Chron. 30.22. He spake comfortably to the Levites, and commanded the people to give the portion to the Priest and Levites, that they might be en­couraged in the law of the Lord, 2 Chron. 31.4. and good J [...]hoshaphat before him honou­red the Levites, as you may see, 2 Chron. 20. And Nehemiah that good Magistrate contend­ed with the Nobles in Judah for prophaning the Sabbath; and whe [...] he perceived that the por­tion of the Levites had not been given them, he contended with the Rulers; and then brought all Judah the Tythes of the Corn, and the New­wine, and the Oyl unto the Treasury, that the Levites might be supplied, and they might be dist [...]ibuted to them according to their right, as is recorded Nehemiah 13.10, 11, 12. And we hope that as God hath formerly, so God will bless and honour this present Parliament to be a defence to all the godly faithful Mini­sters in the Nation, though too many desire they may be their destruction.

What need I tell you of Constantine the [Page 22]Great, that first christian Emperour, what great respect he had to the Ministers of Christ, Eusebius in vi [...]a Con­stantini. wit­ness Euseb [...]us in the life of Constantine: or of those many christian Princes also, who endow­ed, and according to conscience & duty as they believed, gave and setled Tythes for the maintenance of the Ministers of Christ; I have given a Catalogue of many before; I might vindicate at full, and justifie the authority of Parliaments, christian Kings and Magistrates for punishing of offenders, and their coercive power to compel refractory men to do their duties according to the just and good Laws of God and men established; but I refer you and the Reader to that learned VVork of that learned and laborious man, William Prynne of Lincolns-Inn, Esq Entituled, The Sword of the Magistrate supported, That's a Book not answered, nor answerable, so as to deprive the good Magistrates of their just Power given them by God, and the laws of the Nation, over which the Lord in his wise Providence hath placed them; and thus I have done with your last ground of separation, which you are pleased to call, A Sandy Pillar, and Popish Foundation, that is the Sword of the Magi­strate, Rom. 13.1, 2, 3, &c. but it is Gods Ordinance, and that which you ought to obey, even for conscience sake, as we proved before.

And we must tell you, that we do not make the Sword of the Magistrate the Fun­damental of livelyhood (as you imagine) though we do bless the Lord, that our good Mag [...]strates are not against us, but for us; yet we live by Faith, and we hope the Lord will [Page 23]strengthen our Faith to depend upon him, Hab. 2.4. Mat. 28.20. Heb. 13.5. who hath promised to be with us to the end of the world, never to fail us, nor forsake us; nor do we fear starving amongst those we call christians, when Tythes and all we had, were plundered and lost; we found by experience the goodness of God in opening christian hearts to communicate to our neces­sities, and doubt not but if the Lord should suffer us to be brought to the like straights again, Rom. 8.28. 2 Tim. 4.18. yet we know all shall work together for our good, God is the same God still, and will provide for us here, what he seeth best, and preserve us to his Heavenly Kingdom.

Mr. Bourn's Reply.

Friends: I see you are very forgetful of what you boasted of in the first page of your sheet of paper, That your Foundation Princi­ples, (for as I understand you, it is the Princi­ple of your own Church you speak of) if you account your selves & your company a Church of God, That these your Foundation Prin­ciples have Scripture as clear to prove them, as [Page 24]the Sun at noon-day, withou [...] the help of Conse­quences, or Illustration; but now it appear­eth it was but a vapour: for let the Reader consider and judge whether you have brought any one Scripture proof of these Points in Difference between us that is as clear as the Sun at noon day, without a consequence or Illustration, I am sure not one, neither for your first, second, nor third Ground of Sepa­ration. First, you speak magisterially against Infant-membership, and accuse us as if our Church were builded only of these, but you prove it not, and your places of Scripture are all consequences; Ergo, &c. and so for your Second, your places of Scripture are all falsely applyed, they may belong rather to your selves than to us. And for your Third, which consists of your Friend Haggars four legs, which you call Sandy Pillars, and Popish Foundations, if any shew of proof could have been, it must have been by consequences, of which here you bring none, and so have nei­ther proof, nor shew of proof: so that I may justly tell you what you had writ in your Paper, is not sufficient to convince me, or any rational man in the world of the suffici­ency of the Grounds and Reasons of your separation from our Assemblies.

Therefore I hope if God be pleased to open your eyes to see your Errors, you will in Gods due time return to us again, I do not mean to joyn with those Congregations, or Assemblies which are neither Reformed, nor Reforming, who take no care to separate the pretious from the vile, Jer. 15.19. but admit all igno­rant [Page 25]and scandalous to communion with them, whose Ministers neglect Catechizing, that truly profitable and necessary work, to prepare people for a ripe-year Church-mem­bership, and comfortable fellowship with the Saints, and the Lord Jesus Christ; 1 John 1.3. but to joyn with those Congregations which are Re­formed, and reforming, whether they be Presbyterial, Independant, or any other god­ly Ministers, and Reformed Congregations, for if they be godly they are Brethren, Gen. 41.24. and will not fall out by the way, if they be of christian peaceable spirits, and such as love and desire the peace and unity amongst the Churches of Christ, which every faithful soul ought to pray daily for.

I leave the Reader to take notice of your VALE (it seems you will take your leave in Latine, though you find fault with our Hu­mane Learning)

But I conclude with my humble and hearty Prayers to our good God in Jesus Christ, that it will please him to open your hearts to at­tend not to the Doctrines of men, or humane Tradition, which they call New lights, but upon true examination will be found old E [...] ­to [...]s, 2 Tim. 3.5, 6, 7. which by means of your secret Meet­ings, seducing spirits have an easie way to draw you unto, yea to wicked heresies; Gal. 5.20. too frequent works of the flesh, scattered by divers of you amongst poor simple souls, but that you may keep close to the word of Truth, the holy Scriptures, not wrested, 2 Pet. 3.17. and falsely applied as we see too many do to the great danger of their souls, and the souls of others. [Page 26]but according to the mind of the Holy Ghost speaking in the Scriptures, and by plainer pla­ces giving light to understand those which are more difficult: that being guided by that holy Spirit of Truth, you may walk as beco­meth the Gospel of Christ, not in enmity a­gainst, but in peace and love with the godly faithful Ministers of Christ in England, com­monly so known and esteemed, and in peace and love with the churches of Jesus Christ, at­tending conscionably upon, and at the pub­lick preaching of the Gospel, that you may receive strength from Christ in Grace, and in the end (if it be the will of God) have com­munion with us, and all the Saints of Christ in glory. In the mean time let us pray with the Apostle Paul; Rom. 15.6, 7. Now the God of patience and consolation grant that we may be like­minded one towards another, according to Christ Jesus: that we may with one shoulder, one mind, and one mouth glorifie God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; which is the earnest desire and Prayer of him who sub­scribes himself, one desirous to be found