doctrine of the Church before him so immediately succeeding the Apostles for betweene the death of Iohn the Apostle and Origen were but 84. yeares so that which Origen heere deliuereth of tithes was neuer crossed in the Church following till Antichrist oppressed all Now this seemeth to mee a very great presumption for the truth if there were no more that a sentence should bee kept in the best times of the Church so long vncontrolled and neuer altered till the mist of superstition came in which changed all things But let vs consider the rest which follow Next after Origen followeth Cyprian who reprouing Geminius Faustinus whom Geminus Victor had made ouerseer of his will this hee sharply rebuking as being against the Canons saith that ministers or as he termeth them by a word in vse in that age Presbyteri haue nothing to doe with secular affaires but as the Leuites had no other businesse but to attend on the Altar so the Lord had prouided for ministers that they might not be drawen by worldly occasions from their holy businesse but might liue of that honorable stipend with their bretheren as they who receiued tithes of the fruit of the earth c. Tanquam decimas ex fructu accipientes ab altari sacrificijs non recedant sed die ac nocte celestibus rebus ac spiritualibus seruiant Where he saith the ministers liued in honore sportulantium fratrum It sheweth that auncient vse whereof we spake before that the goods of the Church whether rents of lands or tithes or whatsoeuer other prouision were in his time retained according to the ancient custome in the Bishops hands and out of them did the Bishop minister to the necessitie of euery one for sportula was the stipend or allowance of each Presbyter or minister which the Bishop then vsed to distribute among them of the goods of the Church This was the ancient vse of the Church before the diuision of Parishes for at this time the diuision of Parishes was not yet instituted so wee finde tithes payed before Parishes were deuided but then brought to the Bishop and by him distributed among the Ministers It is the common opinion that Dyonisius did first institute the deuision of the parishes who was Bishop of Rome by Hieroms account in the yeare 266. that is some eight years after Cyprians martyrdome or Origens death for they two dyed almost within one yeare By this time parishes began to be deuided and tithes orderly assigned to seuerall Churches Heere the question may be moued when began tithes to be distinctly assigned to their seuerall Churches This question wee mooue for our ministers at the common law who following a common error and taking vp some rumor without skanning hould that tithes were not assigned to any certaine Churches before the councell of Lateran and that in the former times before that councell it was lawful for a man to pay tithes to what Church he would so he paied it was no matter to whom But this is a tale not onely without all groūd of story but against the testimonie of auncients for presently vpon the deuision of parishes it was assigned to what seueral churches tithes should be paid Gratian bringeth a testimony out of Dionisius himselfe to proue this Ecclesias singulas c that is wee haue assigned seuerall churches for seuerall ministers and deuided to each their parishes and church-yards appointed that euery one should haue their proper right so that none may intrude vpon the parish or right of another The same is also confirmed by the testimonie of Leo the fourth who saith de decimis c. that is concerning tithes not wee onely but also those aunceaunts that haue bene before vs haue thought good that the people should pay them to baptismall Churches By a baptismall Chuch is meant such a Chuch where all who dwell within the circuit of that parish ought to be baptised and it is distinguished by this name from Chappels for albeit diuerse Chappels were founded within the same circuit yet it was the ancient order that Baptisme might not bee celebrated in those Chappels but onely in the chiefe Church in that circuit This is confirmed out of a councell of Toledo plures baptismales ecclesiae in vna terminatione esse non possunt sed vna tantummodo cum capellis suis. The counsel called Cabilonense about the yeare 650. hath thus Ecclesiae antiquitus constitutae nec decimis nec vlla possessione priuentur ita vt nouis oratorijs tribuantur And in case a man should build a Church or Chappell within his owne libertie yet hee might not pay tithes to it but the tithes must goe to the auncient Church as in former times for so saith a councel of Wormes about the time of Charles the great Quicunque voluerit c. that is If any man will build a new Church within his owne liberty hee may so hee haue the consent of the Bishop in whose diocesse it is but then the Bishop must prouide that the auncient Churchs loose not their right and tithes by these new but the tithes are alwaies to be payed to the auncient Churches Anastasius Bishop of Rome Ann. 398. hath two testimonies to the same purpose Statuimus c. that is we appoint that if any shall with-hold the tithes and offerings which the people are to pay or shall giue them from the baptismall Churches without the knowledge of the Bishop or of him whose duetie it is to looke thereto and will not be ruled by their counsell he be accursed and debarred from the communion Now if hence any shall surmise that hee may by the sufferance of the Bishop doe this because he is commanded without his knowledge not to doe it that is answered Concil Wormac that the Bishop himselfe may not giue that license to pay tithes from Baptismall Churches and in an other place it is said that if the Bishop should do so he should turne the house of God into a den of theeues and should therefore bee excommunicate without hope of returne Againe Anastasius saith quidam laici qui vel in proprijs vel in beneficijs suas habent basilicas contempta Episcopi dispositione non ad Ecclesias vbi baptismum praedicationem alia Christi Sacramēta percipiunt decimas suas dant sed proprijs Basilicis vel alijs Ecclesiis pro libitu sue tribuunt quod omnibus modis legi sacris canonibus constat esse contrarium The councell of Chalcedon Can. 16. witnesseth that the country parish Churches were vnder the iurisdiction of seuerall Bishops and if a question rose to which Bishop the parish belonged 30. yeares prescription was required to proue the right If any citie should bee afterward renued by the authoritie of the Emperour then the ordination of Parishes should follow the new ordination of that citie Thus were parish Churches vnder the gouernment of Bishops and tithes assigned to
he praeceptum de soluendis decimis qua parte diuinum naturale est non posse vlla lege humana vel consuetudine contraria aboleri ac proinde certum est Ecclesiam habere ius petendi decimas etiam vbi consuetudo est vt non soluantur in hoc enim omnes theologi Canonistae conueniunt If this bee so certaine then it is also certaine that if it were not for the Popes dispensations to the contrary all Papists would assent to our conclusion By this graunt of Bellarmins wee haue gotten somewhat that all the schole-men and canonists that is in a manner all papists hould that the precept of tithes is diuine and of the law of nature in some sort and that therfore the Church hath right to claime tithes which words would bee well noted for if therefore the Church hath right to demaund tithes because in some sort tithes belong to the morall and naturall law then are tithes neither iudiciall nor ceremoniall in any sort For that which the Church may alwaies demaund is naturall and diuine But the Church saith Bellarmine may alwaies demaund tithes that is the tenth part though custome bee against it Therefore the tenth part is due by the law of God and of nature Now the Church hath not alwayes right to demaund things ceremoniall or iudiciall By this which Bellarmine graunteth we haue enough for he proueth that the quota pars is naturall and diuine And whether Bellarmine graunt thus much or not the force of the truth will compell euery man to confesse that the thing which must of right alwayes be demaunded in the Church is naturall and diuine Now certaine it is that the Church hath no right to demaund any other kinde of maintenance then tithes Abulensis who seemeth to bee much more curious then Bellarmine moueth this question quo nam iure debetur decima after much disputation his resolute aunswere is debetur iure canonico quia non debitur iure naturae nec diuino nec ciuili quum illud non imponat onera pro ministris dei neque est enim aliqua lex ciuilis quae obliget omnes Christianos quum non sit aliquis vnus princeps secularis omnium sicut est vnus princeps ecclesiasticus In which wordes wee obserue the absurdities whereinto great wits must needes fall when once they resolue to haue the truth as Saint Iames saith in respect of persons for by this it appeareth what they would hold if the Popes authoritie to the contrary did not set a byas vpon their wits and words First he saith tithes are due onely iure Canonica but what then must bee said of those times beefore this ius Canonicum was inuented Tithes were proued by the auncient Fathers to bee due when there was no Canon law in the world and were more sincerely held by the Church before then after the Canon law came in held by the Fathers from the law of God and no other Secondly he graunteth that tithes are not due iure ciuili and giueth reasons why they cannot stand by that law which are well to be marked because saith he tithes are the ministers right through all Christendome Now neither doe the ciuill magistrate impose those rights neither is there any one ciuil Prince that ruleth ouer al christendome therefore they are not neither may be imposed by the ciuill lawes If this reason be good then is it certaine that tithes haue nothing to doe with iudicials for nothing is iudiciall but that which may bee imposed by the ciuill lawes this is an euident truth which none denieth that knoweth what are iudicials whereby it is no lesse euident that Abulensis doth vtterly ouerthrow all that deuise at once which the schole-men so busily build vp Thirdly wee reason from his enumeration of lawes thus Tithes are due by some law either by the lawe of God or by the ciuill lawes and Princes constitutions or by the Canon law But Abulensis and the rest of that side graunt that they are not due by the ciuill law and Princes constitutions and wee proue that they are not due by the Canon law because they were more duely more orderly and sincerely payed and held before the Canon law was inuented then euer they were since therefore it must follow that they are due by the law of God As this standeth against the Papists so it standeth no lesse strong against such as hold tithes Princes constitutions because it is proued that tithes were held as orderly and duely in the Church before they were confirmed by Princes constitutions as afterward Princes indeed may confirme or forbid the vse but they cannot make or take away the right Wherefore seeing all that standeth against vs is declared to be of no force and that we haue proued that the maintenance in the Apostles times was nothing but almes that tithes were established in the Church as the auncient ordinance of God that this ordinance is not iudiciall beecause it is holy and of things separate from common vse nor ceremoniall because it was not ordained to remaine onely vntill the time of reformation but remaineth after that time seeing these things stand thus we may safely conclude that tithes are now due to the ministers of the Church by the expresse word of God as they haue beene alwaies accounted in the best ages of the Church FINIS Numb 13. 33. 2. King 22. 20. Spelunca latronum Ios. 10. 23. 1. Kings 14. Exod. 1. 9. 10. 1. Sam. 5. 1. Sam 24. 5. 2. Sam. 10. 4. Psal. 50. Psal. 50. 1. Lib. 2. doct fid art 3. cap. 64. 2 Tom. 1. contr 5 lib. 1. cap. 25. 3. The first opinion refuted 1. Cor. â— Luke 10. 7. 1. Tim. 5. 8. The second opinion refuted Gen. 4. 3. 4 5 Gen. 14. 18. Verse 7. Verse 8. Iohn caluin Gen. 28. 20. 21. 22. To. 1. Con. 5. lib. 1. ca. 25. Herodot Clio. Plutarc Camil. Plut. Lucullo Lib. Saturn 3. cap 42. Biblith lib. 8. cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Hist. nat lib 12. cap. 14. 19. Leuit. 27. 30. Num. 18. 21. Whether tithes be ceremoniall 1. 2. q. 81. art â— ad 1. Lib. 2. de Indulg cap. â—â— Gal. 5. 3. Heb. 9. 24. Tithes not iudicials 3. part q. 51. 3. 2. 2. q. 87. Art 3. Hom. 11. In num August in Psal. 146. Apol. cap. 39. Hist. Oct. lib. 1. cap. 17. Defens Pâ—â—â— par 2. c. 25. Cuns 12. q. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matriabus ecclesijs In dictione singularum parochiarum spiscoporum Lib de scriptor eccles Orig. Hom 11. in Num. Ibid. Cyprian ep 66. In honore sportulantium fratrum Inter decreta Dionisij caus 13. q. 1. Caus. 3. q. Caus. 16. q. plures Ibid. Eccle. Ibid. qnicuâ— Ibid. statuiâ— Ibid. q. 7. Caus. 16. q. 1. Defens pac part 2 Cap. 14. Or as the glosse seemeth to read the dotation Caus. 16. q. 7. Ibid. Concil Tolet. 4. can 32. Hom 18 iâ— Act. Hom. 44. in Mat. Ad Nepotia de vitacler In Malach. 3. 8. 1. Tim. 5. In serm Quadrages Lib. 50. Homoliarum homel 48. Caus. 16. q. 2. Concil Matif 2. can 6. Caus. 16. q. 1. Hom. 16. in Euang Hom 9 De rebus ecclesijs cap. 87. Caus. 16. q. 10. 1. Chron 30. Catus test veril tom 2. lib. 15. Abulens in Mat. cap. 23. qu. 136. 2. Tim. 2. 4. Apud francis Astesanum iteÌ„ HostienseÌ„ De clericâ— lib. 1. ca. 25. To. 1 con 5. lib. 1. c. 25. In Mat. 23 q. 148.
almes and that the Ministers of the word haue right to nothing but should liue in high pouertie This opinion seemeth first to be brought by those who were called Waldenses vpon the abuse of Tithes which they saw vnder the Church of Rome It is recorded an opinion of theirs by a writer whose name is not expressed in the last aedition of Catalogus testium veritatis tom 2. lib. 15. This opinion Iohn Wiclif and his schollers receiued from them as he receiued matters of greater importance It is recorded the opinion of Iohn Wiclif by one Thomas Waldensis And among those articles of Iohn Wiclif condemned by the counsell of Constaunce this is one Art 18. Wiclifes Schollers held the same Iohn Hus a Bohemian William Thorp an Englishman as appeareth by their examinations recorded by maister Fox The same opinion hath beene since taught by Anabaptists and Trinitaries as may be seene in a booke de antithesibus veri falsi Christi Anno Dom. 1568. Albae Iuliae The second opinion is that Tithes are not due by Gods law that is a determinate quantitie is not prescribed in the word but onely as these men say a reasonable or competent maintenance is inioyned This is the opinion of them of the Church of Rome as Bellarmin declareth the same is much receiued among our latter writers of the reformed Churches which onely shew of a generall approbation in this opinion hath forced me many times I confesse to lay aside my pen thinking it much more safe to erre with this approbation then to striue for the truth against such a streame of gainesayers For I will not thincke that of our men who haue laboured in reformed Churches which others might say that they haue denied Tithes to be due to the Church vpon a detestation of popery wherein tithes were so much abused but this I thinke that they intending greater points of doctrine suffered this to lye lesse regarded and in a manner forgotten as a thing not altogether so necessary as those other points wherein they made especiall choise to labour Then the reuerend regard of their names their persons their labours being remooued from this question we take this opinion vnsound and of lesse probabilitie then the former The third is that tithes are due to the Ministers of the Church by the expresse word of God This is the iudgement of the auncient fathers from the beginning without crose or contradiction vntill the supreame authoritie of the bishop of Rome tooke them away by the meanes of impropriations This is the conclusion which we purpose heere God willing to confirme First we will refute the two former opinions then open the story of Tithes and confirme the point in question last wee will aunswere obiections The first opinion that tithes are almes implyeth also those seuerall braunches which Bellarmine for inlarging controuersies maketh seuerall questions or questionable errors That they are not to be payed to euill Ministers and that all ministers must resolue to liue in high pouerty as it was tearmed This opinion is thus ouerthrowen by the words of the Apostle Who goeth to warfare at any time at his owne cost who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit therof or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milke of the flocke The reason stands thus if he that goeth to warfare may of duty chalenge his wages of the people for whom he fighteth or he that planteth a vineyard may of duety challenge to eate thereof or hee who feedeth a flock may of duty challenge to eate of the milke of the flock then the Minister fighting for the people against their spirituall aduersaries planting a vineyard among them feeding a flock in feeding them may challenge of duty his reliefe not beg it as almes but the first is true therefore the second Out of which reason of the Apostle drawen from these examples it appeareth farther that by the law of nature the teachers are prouided for because by the law of nature he who goeth to warfare must bee prouided for by them who set him to that seruice by the law of nature hee who planteth a vineyard eateth of the fruit by the same law hee who feedeth a flock eateth of the milke If it bee said that almes are also to be giuen by the law of nature for answere wee must obserue this distinction betwene almes and that thing for which the Apostle heere pleadeth If almes be not giuen it is a breach of charitie but if this bee denied of which the Apostle speaketh it is a breach of iustice For as it is iniustice to denie wages to him whom you appoint to fight for you or to debarre a man from the fruit of that vineyard which he planteth or to denie him the milke of a flock which he feedeth so is it in like manner iniustice to denie the Minister that maintenance for which the Apostle pleadeth Now if it bee iniustice to denie the ministers maintenance then he hath a right and part in the goods of those whom hee teacheth for iustice giueth to euery man his owne and not one mans right to another whereby it is euident that the Minister hath a part and right in their goods whom he teacheth Now to take this is not to take almes but to take his owne So then by this reason almes are assuredly ouerthrowen because almes are not of duty and iustice to bee challenged as these things are therefore the Ministers maintenance standeth not by almes but by iustice as the souldiers wages stand not by almes but by iustice as by iustice not by almes a man may eate the fruit of a vineyard which he planteth or of the milke of his flock The same is confirmed by those words The labourer is worthy of his wages No man saith the begger is worthy of almes Now he that saith the labourer is worthy of his wages sayth that of iustice hee may challenge it not beg it as almes for in as much as it is wages it is due by iustice but no almes are due by iustice for so should we take away all difference betweene iustice and charitie therefore if almes no wages if wages no almes The second opinion faith not tithes but a competent maintenance is due by Gods law and this is vrged to be most agreeable to the Apostles times the words are onely altered otherwise this is the same with the former that saith that tithes are meer almes for this opinion bringeth in with it these consequences first that tithes as tithes are almes for he that denieth that they are to be payed of duty and iustice proueth them almes secondly that ministers may not claime any thing out of Gods word and this also proueth almes For he that saith to his parishoner tithes I cannot claim and therfore no certaine thing out of the word yet somewhat in conscience you should contribute vnto me what doth he else but leaue it to the choise
Tithes stood in the time of the new Testament LEt it bee examined in the next place how tithes stood in the time of the new Testament In this time we finde no expresse mention that tithes were payed nor any expresse proofe that they were not but there is great probabilitie that they were not First because we finde no expresse testimonie for them Secondly because that vse of paying tithes as the Church then stoode was so incommodious and cumbersome that it could not well be practised And therefore as circumcision was laid aside for a time whilst Israell trauailed through the wildernesse not because the people of right ought not then also to haue vsed it but because it was so incommodious for that estate and time of the Church that it could not without great trouble be practised euen so the vse of tithes in the time of Christ and his Apostles was laid aside not because it ought not but because it could not without great incumbrance be done And as circumcision was resumed as soone as the estate of the Church could beare it so tithes were reestablished as soone as the condition of the church could suffer it for tithes can not wel be payed but where some whole state or kingdome receiueth Christianitie and where the maiestrate doth fauour the Church which was not as then Now as soone as it can be shewed that a Maiestrate did fauour the Church so soone will it also appeare that tithes were established Thirdly moreouer tithes were payed to the priests and Leuites in the time of Christ and his Apostles now the Iewish sinagogue must first be buried before these things could be orderly done when the sinagogue was buryed and the estate of the Church could beare the practise then were tithes brought into vse in the Church Fourthly in the times of the new Testament and somewhat after there was an extraordinary maintenance by a communitie of all things which supplied the want of tithes but this communitie was extraordinary and not to last alwaies now as this extraordinarie maintenance decayed tithes being the ordinarie maintenance of the ministerie grew in vse againe and if it should so happen that the Church should bee in the like case againe as then it was then must paying of tithes cease for the same reason as then it did And then might that communitie be reduced againe for that time that is an extraordinarie maintenance at an extraordinarie time but this could not preiudice the right of the ordinarie maintenance when fit time serueth albeit then that for these reasons tithes were not vsed de facto in the time of the new Testament yet it appeareth that de iure they ought to haue beene payed if these incumbrances had not disturbed the conuenient practise thereof Mat. 23. 23 You tith mint and annise and cummin and leaue the weightier matters of the law c. these ought yee to haue done and not to haue left the other vndone from which words tithing hath the approbation of Christ as a thing that ought to be done there is an apposition betweene things of the same kinde the greatest morall things in mercy and iudgement and the least morall things in paying the least tithes Thus Origen and other fathers vnderstand these words as belonging no lesse to Christians then to Iewes Luke 18. the proud Pharisee in his prayer saith I fast twise in the weeke I giue tithes of all that euer I possesse where we finde tithes accounted morall as fasting Heb 7. 8. the Apostle sheweth from Abrahams paying tithes to Melchisedech that Christs priesthood is perpetuall not subiect to change as was that of Leuy which declareth that tithes follow that priesthood which is perpetuall Briefly I reason thus there is no proofe through out all the new Testament for any other ordinary maintenance of the ministery therefore tithes remaine still the ordinarie maintenance But because the Apostles times are so much obiected against vs for the pretended competencie we must better consider these times so far forth as they touch this maintenance In the Apostles writings ther be two things to be obserued concerning this point First the examples of that maintenance which then was in vse Secondly the reasons and proofes which the Apostles vse to moue the people to contribute both these things stand against the pretended competencie for if the examples be considered that which was done appeareth to be nothing else but almes if the proofes be weighed they are such as proue another thing then that which then was practised and if they bee well examined they prooue tithes due Now the Apostles reasons are good and strong when as by such proofes as indeed proue the ordinary maintenance due he calleth for some other thing of the people because tithes the ordinary maintenance could not in that estate of the Church well bee payed If these things be examined in order it will appeare first by the examples and practise of that time that those contributions were nothing but almes for no man was compelled to giue any thing but euery man gaue as hee was moued It shall bee sufficient of many to shew a few examples the Apostle speaking of such contributions Romanes 15. 26. 27. saith it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certaine distribution c. By which words hee describeth an almes and in the words following where he saith It pleased them their debtours are they he sheweth this distribution was but almes for if it were giuen at their pleasure and if they who receiued it were their debtours surely it can bee nothing but almes The circumstances of that action proue no lesse for they of Macedonia and Achaia as likewise they of Rome were not bound in any other dutie then meere charitie to maintaine those at Rome And as heere wee finde that hee accompteth it so euen so hee calleth it in plaine termes by the name of Almes Act. 24. 17. After many yeeres I came and brought almes to my nation By this it may appeare that the Apostle accompted such contributions as then were vsed in the Church meere Almes Tertullian speaking of this vse which as it seemed continued to his time saith thus vnusquisque stipem quum velit si modo possit apponit nam nemo compellitur sed sponte confert Then from the vse and practise of the Apostles times nothing can bee proued but almes and therefore this competent maintenance cannot bee drawen hence first because this competency by them who striue for it is not meant almes secondly because they who hould this doe thinke that the people may bee compelled to contribute some thing but this is directly against the vse of the Apostles times for no man was compelled but that onely was taken which was willingly giuen Thirdly because they would haue it at the appointment of the maiestrate which thing is not answerable to these times This may suffice to proue that this competent maintenance doth not agree
the time to come ought to be Out of these the Bishops being faithfull stewards heereof ought to minister all necessaries to them that desire to liue in common so that among them none want for these things are the oblations of the faithfull by these meanes the cathedral churches gouerned by the Bishops haue by Gods help had such increase and so many so well prouided that among them none that liueth in common wanteth any thing but receiueth all necessaries from the Bishop and his ministers And therefore if either now or heereafter any shall take those lands let him bee accursed c. Out of which testimonie first it appeareth that the communitie of things lasted in some sort to this time and therfore tithes are not spoken of so long as this communitie was in vse It is also apparant by that which followed that this thing was the first occasion that the community ceased and that tithes came in vse againe Secondly we obserue that the land and temporalties of Bishops were not for this end and vse giuen them that they should keepe all to themselues but that they thence might comfort such as wanted especially in the ministery Thirdly it appeareth plaine sacriledge to take such lands and temporalties away from the Bishops and the Church For first the lands were sold and the price giuen afterward the lands were giuen if it were in the choise of the giuers whether they would giue the price in money or in lands I demaund this question when they gaue the price in money was it not sacriledge to take it back againe or any part thereof as Ananias and Saphira did Act. 5 1. Now if it were such sacriledge to take backe the price is not the same to be thought of the lands themselues for in this question what difference is betweene the lands and the price of those lands Now whereas the question may be moued concerning Abby lands which were giuen for superstitious vses first the Ciuilians and Canonists are agreed vpon the poynt for the Canonists hold that a custome may make a law how erroneous soeuer the beginning was the Ciuilians iudge that if a thing be giuen to the Church for vnlawfull vses those vses must bee altered but the thing remaine But now admitting that an errour in the beeginning make a nullitie in the gift from the beginning yet we say this toucheth not Bishoprik lands at all for whoseuer is diligent in the story of the Church will confesse a great difference betweene lands giuen to Bishopriks and to Abbyes for Bishoprick lands were giuen presently vpon the planting of Churches And no story can shew that euer there was a Church planted in the best times but either lands were committed to the gouernment of Bishops for the vse of the Church or else the price was brought to them who then gouerned the Churches but in Abbey lands the case was nothing like for this indowment of Abbyes with lands was of late in the time of superstition brought in vse not vpon the calling and planting but vpon the corrupting of Churches For which cause it must be confessed that these two things are not to be spoken of confusedly as if one and the same case were in both seeing they are from such differing beginnings and for such differing ends Thus much then may be drawen I say not from Urbanus his testimony but from the practise of the Church in the Apostles times that whatsoeuer was giuen to the Church there being no errour or superstition in the gift that of right ought to remaine to the Church and to take that away is sacriledge what is sacriledge if this be not Now as this doth maintaine the right of Bishops temporalties to the Church because that gift was giuen to the Church in the beginning without errour or superstition so it maintaineth the right of tithes which haue beene giuen by the common consent of Christians to the Church If there were no other right sauing this that tithes haue beene dedicated to the Church and in that dedication there was no errour or superstition this were enough to proue that tithes could not be taken away no more then Ananias and Saphyra might take away any part of that which they had vowed to the Church But when we haue this reason added to the expresse will of God that all tithes are the Lords alwaies to bee giuen to him as we haue shewed heerein must needes be double sacriledge and manifest impiety committed to take that away from God which God and man hath decreed should be his A learned and godly minister of Scotland hath set foorth of late certaine sermons against sacriledge yet not touching this question of tithes in this sort but rather declaring his opinion that in some cases tithes might be changed into another meanes of sufficient prouision if such godly zeale were now among men as was of old time yet these cases wherein this change may be admitted hee doth not open but as now the zeale of men standeth hee is vtterly against the change But it fareth with him as it must needes doe with all that sincerely write eyther against sacriledge or for the maintenance of ministers for let a man throughly touch these points and will hee nill hee hee shall proue tithes due as this man doth though not purposing the same for hee proueth that to take away any thing of that which is holy to God is sacriledge Now that tithes are euer holy to God wee haue proued both dedicated to him by man and aduouched by himselfe so that of all things that can bee called holy in this sense nothing hath that place before tithes If then sacriledge be in taking away holy things from God and his Church it appeareth more in taking away tithes then in any other thing whatsoeuer Neither can sacriledge heerein be excused though men should establish something in place of that holy thing taken away First beecause the changing of holy things is sacriledge no lesse though happely a lesse kinde of sacriledge then taking away of the same If Nabucadnezzer hauing taken away the holy vessels out of the house of the Lord should in place thereof haue put some other might his sacriledge thereby be excused or Beltassar taking the vessels of the Lords house and in them banquetting with his Lords and Concubines if he should in stead there of haue placed other could any iustifie his sacriledge therefore no more can the taking away of tithes bee iustified though something in place thereof should bee appointed by men Secondly againe albeit wee should admit that in some things of the Church this might bee done yet that it can bee in tithes wee vtrerly denie vnlesse it bee proued that the change is made by the same power and authoritie by which tithes are made holy to God now wee haue shewed that man did not make tithes holy to God and his Church but the Lord himselfe Heerein then wee haue not onely the consent of man but
their proper Churches long before the councell of Lateran that counsell prouided nothing at all in this point onely whereas the Regulars and Seculars were then deuising a trick to defraud the Churches of tithes the counsell prouided to take order to stop that iniustice for the Regulars and Seculars when they let their houses or farmes would couenant that the farmer should pay tithes to them heereby the Church to whose parish the farme belonged was defrauded To redresse this abuse the counsell of Lateran Cap. 56. ordaineth that such tithes should not be payed to the land-lords but to the parish Church This is the rather to be noted because it openeth the manner and beginning of that wickednes which came in by such fraternities for from these beginnings impropriations came in now the counsell cunningly helped forward the matter for by taking away priuate authoritie there was a priuiledge cunningly thrust into the Popes hands and therefore this abuse was forbidden by the counsell because they who would doe it must fetch a license from the Pope for before this time began those dispensations as heereafter will bee shewed Before wee proceede to the testimonies of succeeding Fathers one thing I would note concerning patronages of Churches for that is a thing not vnworthie of knowledge and pertaining to the question which I follow The Church had of old euen from the Apostles times or very neare them lands and possessions which were desposed by the chiefe of the clergy that is Bishops there were also as parishes were distinguished some portions of land assigned to euery parish Church Ministers then hauing temporalties as now wee call them it could not choose but questions might arise concerning those possessions Now when any troublesome question did arise those godly men in the beginning would not bee contentious in the law no not for their owne lands wherefore because they should neither bee drawen from the seruice of the Church through sutes nor yet loose their land vppon the sute of contentious men there were certaine temporall men appointed eyther by godly kings whom Marsilius Patauinus calleth Legislatores or by such as gaue those lands to be Patrons of Churches who might be readie to defend the Church-rights that the Bishops and Pastors might with more fruit and lesse incumbrance apply their vocations Marsilius Patauinus witnesseth thus much Dominium temporaliū quae sunt pro ministrorū Euāgelicorū sustentatione statuta est legislatoris aut eius vel eorū qui per legislatorem ad hoc fuerint deputati vel per eos qui talia dederunt si fuerint singularès personae quae supra dicta temporalia dederint et ordinauerint ex bonis suio ad vsum praedictum Qui sequidem sic statuti ad ecclesiasticorum temporalium defensionem vendicationem vocari solebant ecclesiarum patroni Nam antiquitus viri sancti atque perfecti ministri euāgelici Christum imitari volentes contra nullum voluerunt contondere iudicio Our purpose is not to stay in examining euery defect in Marsilius whereunto he was carried by an earnest welwilling to the Emperours cause and an hatred against the abuses of the church as then it stood Onely we note that temporall patrones were appointed by the first doners not to bestow church-liuings as now they doe but to defend the right of the land giuen to the church For at the first patrones had no more right neither could retaine any more to thēselues then that which was common to all This appeareth out of diuerse testimonies which I cite onely for storie sake for although these be not vndoubted testimonies yet vndoubtedly this vse may bee made of them Whereas one Iulius had founded a church Gelasius writeth to Senectior Bishop of that dioces wherein the church was founded to dedicate the same Prouided that first Iulius did resigne the donation and he must know that he can retaine therein no right to himselfe praeter processionis aditum qui omnibus christianis dibetur What is ment by processionis aditus I leaue to the canonists to expound but by the words it seemeth to be a thing common to all christians It is likewise witnessed that one Frigentius founding a Church retained no more then the former The same is confirmed by a constitution of the fourth Toletan councell Nouerint conditores basilicarum in rebus quas eisdem conferunt nullam se potestatem habere sed iuxtà canonum instituta sicut ecclesiam ita dotem eius ad ordinationem episcopi pertinere But in the same councell it is graunted that the founders of churches in their life time onely may nominate a minister to the church Thus much concerning the beginning of patronages where wee may note how far this thing among many is drawen by corruption frō the beginning for patrons were first instituted for defence of the church rights from the wrong and insolences of corrupt and contentious men But the rights of the church are at this day euery wher ouerthrowen as it were by a common conspiracie of men against the church ministerie partly by auncient corruptions partly by latter And where can the church haue her right for corrupt customes but doe the patrones stand in the gap to defend the church-right doe they not looke on whilst enery one maketh hast to carry away the spoiles one inuiting another as to a common pray They will say it were to much for them to defend the church in this spoiling age yet this they should doe from the beginning Sed quis custodiat ipsos custodes but I returne to my storie Wee haue shewed out of such records as are least when tithes began to be established in the church after the Apostles how parishes were seperated and tithes seuerally assigned to each limitation that the vse of paying tithes to limitted churches was not a matter deuised by the councell of Lateran but in better vse and more incorrupt order before that councell then euer since that the vse of patronages in the beginning was for the defence of the church-rights Now we are to inquire how the succeeding fathers did write of tithes after they were once assigned to particular churches Chrisostome teaching an husbandman how he may be a worthie Christian and doe good workes though hee build no Churches saith quasi ducta vxore vel sponsa vel data virgine sie erga Ecclesiam affectus esto dotem ascribe illi ita benedictionis praedium multiplicabitur quid enim non erit illic bonorum parumne est obscero toreular benedici panumne est Deum ex omnibus fructibus prius partem ac decimas accipere ad pacem agricolarum hoc vtile and presently after preces illic perpetuae propter te laudes ac synaxes propter te hee doeth not onely teach them that they ought to pay tithes but he giueth these reasons because their seruice prayers preaching is for thee and because this is the meanes to haue a
decimae dantur sciat quod ideo dandae sunt vt hac deuotione Deus placatus largiùs praestet quae necessaria sunt vt ministri Ecclesiae exinde releuati liberiores fiant ad spiritualis exercitij explecionem Gregory the first saith thus sicut offerre in lege iubemini fratres charissimi decimas rerum it a ei offerre contendite decimas dierum where Gregory expresly applyeth the precept of tithes written in the law to Christians teaching that christians in the law were commaunded to pay tithes Beda in his booke called Scintillae proueth tithes due by Scriptures and Fathers he citeth out of Augustin decimae ex debito requiruntur qui eas dare noluerit res alienas inuadit And againe haec est Domini iustissima consuetudo vt si tu illi decimam non dederis tu ad decimam reuoceris And many other testimonies Caesarius Arelatens Episc saith decimae non sunt nostrae sed Ecclesiae Walafridus Strabo saith decimas Deo sacerdotibus eius dandas Abraham factis Iacob promissis insinuat deinde lex statuit omnes doctores sancti commemorant Leo the fourth about the yeare of Christ 840. is thus cited by Gracian de decimis iusto ordine non tantum nobis sed etiam maioribus visum est a plebibus tantum vbi sacrosancta baptismata dantur debere dari About this time and after it tithes were established by constitutions of Princes as by Charles the great and other Some learned men haue thought because some Princes haue made constitutions for tithes to bee payed to the Church that therefore tithes are held by no other right then Princes constitutions But before this time tithes were alwaies held by the lawes of God and not of Princes I graunt if Princes were so vngodly as they were in the time of the Apostles that they would not yeeld to Gods ordinance heerein but would resist the same then could not tithes be payed as in the Apostles times for that cause they were not but the right ceaseth not and as wicked Princes cannot take away the right by stopping the practise so godly Princes cannot make a right but onely confirme it when by their good lawes they yeeld to Gods ordinance Though Ezekias by a Godly law command the keeping of the Passeouer yet the Passeouer may not therefore be called the constitution of Ezekias It is the more to be maruailed that men of learning are so hasty in concluding that tithes are nothing but princes constitutions because they finde them confirmed by some few princes After this time the Church succeding agreed with the former Churches in this opinion as appeareth by the testimonies recorded Auent lib. 3. Anual Synod Arelat 4 cap 9. Synod Anglic. cap. 17. in which place it is testified that tithes ought to bee payed as it is commanded in the law they testifie also that no man can giue acceptable almes of the rest vnlesse first he separate the tenth to the Lord which he hath appointed for himselfe from the beginning they testifie farther that many grudging to pay the tenth part are therefore often themselues brought to atenth part the same is confirmed by Rabanus Maurus in Num. lib. 2. ca. 22. 23. Leges Boiorum apud Auent lib. 3. Gregory 2. apud Auent lib. 3. Concil Warm caus 16. q. 1. Nicolaus 1. about the yeare of Christ 858. caus 16. qu. 2. And thus in the story of tithes wee are come to those timees wherein the change began for all this while there was no change thought of in this question After this began those late deuises wher of we spake before for now the Pope being growen to such an incorrigle pride and liberty that he would do al things after his owne pleasure no Prince or Emperour being able to bring him into order began by his al-oppressing power to change this ordinance of tithes which from the beginning remained vntouched till now for after it was once found out that all things holy profane were ready marchandise for them that brought most then came in exemptions first and afterward impropriations transfering tithes from one to an other when exemptions first came in I cannot certainely define In the schisme between two Popes Alexander the third and Victor the fourth Alexander preuailed by force perfidiousnes as they speake who write thereof of him it is testified Cistercienses Hospitalarios Templarios decimarum solutione exemit before that time Iohn xv gaue the like priuiledge to Saint Benets Monks at Casinum as witnesseth Leo Marsican Hostiensis Episcop Lib. 2. cap. 1. histor Casinensis monasterij in these words hoc vltra Iohannem duodecimum c. in suo priuilegio autoritate Apostolica addidit nulli Episcopo licere ab vllo ex populis monasterio subiectis vel a quibuslibet vbique terrarum ad se pertinentibus Ecclesijs decimas viuorum seu oblationes defunctorum qualibet occasione percipere This Iohn was Pope Ann. 990. After this the marchandise of exempting and appropriating was well followed this new practise of Popes against the auncient ordinance of God was first maintained by the wit of Alexander de Hales and after by Thomas of Aquine as we haue shewed Their deuise is that tithes are iudicials they framed new distinctions to coulour the Popes vsurpation after he had first by impropriations broken the ordinance of God and put tithes away from the teachers which from the beginning of the world till these times had not beene done before All the schole-men in a manner follow these two in this question who with their vnfruitfull disputations darkning the church as they carried many parts of the holy truth into bondage so it is not much to bee maruailed if this truth of tithes found among them the same intertainment which other parts of the truth of greater importance did finde After this time the right of tithes seemed to lie buried by the Popes vsurpation without great resistance yet some were found though few who against the flattery of schole-men preserued the truth of this question Nicolaus Lyra albeit carried into some superstitions by the streame of those times yet taught this point not after the late schole-men but after the auncient fathers So did Strabus an Anglosaxon the author of the ordinary glosse Iohannes Semeca author of the glosse vpon Gratians decrees did withstand Pope Clement the fourth exacting tithes through Germany which thing Semeca tooke to be vnlawfull and was therefore excommunicate by the Pope and put from the place of gouernment which he held at Halberstade Against which iniustice Semeca appealed to a councell and had many great men fauoring his cause Whilst the contention grew hot betwene them the death of them both ended the quarrell the storie is in Krantzius And thus the Pope oppressing all with his greatnesse making open sale of tithes instituting impropriations laid wast the Churches euery where And in this sort they stood vntill the
time of reformation began by the blessed labours of them whom God raised vp for that seruice After which time the opinion that tithes were ceremonials was first deuised CHAP. VI. The obiections answered and the point in question confirmed THus far haue wee followed the story of Tithes from the beginning though not so exactly as might be wished yet so as serueth sufficiently to shew how the right of tithes haue stood that they were alwaies due to the teachers of the Church before the law vnder the law and in the time of grace And this is sufficient to shew that this thing belongeth to the morall law and so to the law of nature For that which alwaies remaineth the same in all ages of the church doth surely belong to the moral law Thus haue tithes alwaies stood the same in all ages of the church vntil late corruptions breaking in like a flud haue taken away the knowledge and right difference of things But if a man with iudgement think of the matter he will confesse that late vpstarts opinions especially such as are maintained neither by scriptures auncient fathers nor reasons for they who hould tithes from the church haue no other argument then such as moued the Pope to take them away might and vsurpation and that most pleasing reason of gaine A man I say of iudgement and indifferencie must needes yeeld that these later opinions ought not to prescribe against so auncient a truth Now least any scruple might remaine wee purpose last of all to consider the obiections moued against our conclusion Bellarmine passeth somewhat hastily by it and maketh but one obiection but Alphonsus Tostales Bishop of Abula doth insist in the question and seeketh to breed more trouble First hee would prooue that tithes belong not to the law of nature Secondly not to the morall law And first he obiecteth thus God did institute in the olde Testament that tithes should be payed therefore this is not pertaining to the law of nature the reason is that which is naturall is not instituted by a law for vnto such things the bond of nature sufficeth we answere we finde many things instituted in the law which out of question belong to the law of nature as the whole decalog Abulensis reasoneth against this answere thus things pertaining to the law of nature are not put among other precepts but onely they are contained in the decalog tithes are put with others I answere to this last obiection and to the former thus tithes haue two respects First if wee respect the generall ordinance of tithes they were not instituted in the law for this ordinance was before the law and so tithes were alwaies the Lords as wee haue shewed Secondly if wee respect the particular assignation of tithes to the Leuites this is all which was instituted in the law Now this Leuiticall assignation is put with other precepts but the generall ordinance of tithes is included in the decalog The parts of this distinction we haue proued wherefore all that Abulensis can proue by this argument is onely this that the Leuiticall assignation was not belonging to the law of nature which we yeeld Againe where he saith nothing belonging to the law of nature is set among other preceps this is false for those things which are included in the decalog are often repeated among other precepts therefore idolatry whordome and such like are forbidden not onely in the decalog but among other precepts vsury is against the law of nature as naturall men haue witnessed yet it is set among other precepts and the Prophet Ezekiel sheweth that all these vsury idolatry whordome c. are the breaches of the morall law Ezek. 18. therefore those things that beelong to the law of nature are set among other precepts To that obiection which Abulensis draweth from Iacobs vow we haue answered before Farther he obiecteth thus If they were of the law of nature then should all nations be bound thereto to this wee haue answeared before shewing that all Christians haue thought themselues bound thereto and that euen heathen men haue thought no lesse Another obiection is If they belong to the law of nature then should they be due to Gods ministers and yet in the old Testament tithes were not giuen nor any part of them to the priests which were gods chiefe ministers but onely to the Leuites which were ministers of lesse place I aunswere where as Abulensis saith the priests had no tithes which saying he often repeateth we think it enough to aunswere him with the authoritie of other Lyra a Iew borne and more skilfull in the auncient affaires of the Iewes then Abulensis vpon the 7. Heb. saith thus Leuitae generaliter recipiebant decimas a reliquo populo Inter Leuitas autem illi qui erant maiores illius tribus videlicet sacerdotes summi filij Aaron non solum accipiebant decimam à populo sed etiam de parte Leuitarum recipiebant quae vocabatur decima decimae Num 18. This testimonie spoileth his argument Hierom also witnesseth asmuch in Malach. 3. Againe in the language of the fathers this word Leuites vnder the gospell is alwaies vsed for a preaching minister Whereby they signified that tithes were due to labouring ministers Bishops were otherwise prouided for albeit in the beginning Bishops had the distributing of such things among the ministers He obiecteth farther When GOD disposed of tithes Num. 18. He saith I haue giuen the tithes to the children of Leui for their seruice at the tabernacle c. Wherein is meant that he gaue this possession but of late to the Leuits and therefore commanded them to possesse nothing among their brethren thus much we graūt what is the conclusion now if tithes were due by the law of nature then would not God take from them the right of possessing the land among the Israelites Wee aunswere this last inference is deuided ther is no proofe brought for it neither is there any affinitie betweene the antecedent and consequent For GOD may command the Leuites to possesse no lands other then was assigned to them which was a large portion because no worldly businesse should call them away from the seruice of GOD and because the ministers of the gospell might bee instructed not to intangle themselues with the affaires of this world to much in which sense the Apostle giueth that instruction to Timothie no man that warreth doth intangle himselfe with the affaires of this life beecause hee would please him that hath cosen him to bee a souldier and yet the generall right of tithes may belong to the law of nature for all this But admitting the conclusion we say it concludeth onely of the Leuiticall assignation not of the generall ordinance Another obiection is The Leuites by the law of nature were not dedicated to the seruice of the Tabernacle therefore the tenth was not determinable by nature We answere The dedication of the Leuites to the seruice of the Tabernacle was ceremoniall
That therefore tithes should be ceremonial the consequence houldeth not no not so much as to proue the Leuiticall assignation ceremoniall It proueth that assignation onely temporary not perpetuall For it is to last no longer then the seruice of the Leuites This is all that can be truely inferred Another obiection is thus That thing is onely pertayning to the law of nature whose bond and duety may bee determined by naturall reason but naturall reason doth not determine numbers for there can no naturall reason bee brought why rather the tenth part then more or lesse should bee payed Wee answere by distinguishing both lawes naturall and morall If wee vnderstand the law of nature to reach as farre as the morall law in his largest sence as Abulensis vnderstandeth it then tithes belong to the law of nature euen as doth the sanctifieng of a seauenth day to God and naturall reason doth aswel determine the tenth in number as the seauenth in number And because Abulensis taketh naturall in this sence for in Leuit. cap. 1. qu. 1. he saith Moralia praecepta naturalia sunt therefore in answering whensoeuer I admit tithes to belong to the law of nature I would bee vnderstood to speake in this sence But if wee take the law of nature for that which floweth from naturall principles and is manifested to the naturall man by naturall meanes so wee graunt tithes not naturall We may also distinguish things morall for either they are morall by diuine institution or by nature things morall by nature are those that belong to the law of nature in which sence the morall law and naturall law is all one But morall by institution are all things beelonging to the true worship of God which things as they come not from the principles of nature so they are not knowen to the naturall man Among these things are a sanctifieng of a seauenth day by God and sanctifieng of tithes to God which things are morall by diuine institution and so naturall by a secondarie declaration after and vpon the law of nature and in that sence reduced to the law of nature as all things that are reueiled in the true worship of God being morall not by nature but by diuine institution Another obiection is If it were morall then must it remaine as it then stood but then it stood so as to bee payed to the Leuits not to the Priests therefore it should not now bee payed to the Priests yet now it is payed to the Priests wee aunswere this is a fallacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ambiguitie is in this word Priest They are not now giuen to such Priests as then were but they are now giuen to the labouring ministers who albeit in the time of Abulensis were commonly called priests and the word being vnderstood aright may iustly be so called yet in truth they answere not to the Priests of the old Testaments but to the Leuites as we haue shewed Againe we haue proued out of Lyra and Hierom that euen then also they were giuen to the Priests An other obiection is tithes were the Leuites right for their seruice but there was no more reason to giue tithes to Leuites then to Priests this is answered it resteth vpon those grounds that no tithes were then giuen to Priests which is vntrue and that tithes were assigned to the Leuites which speaketh onely of the assignation and not of the generall ordinance Another obiection is the seruice of the Leuites was a greater thing then that which was giuen for their seruice but the seruice it selfe ceaseth therefore all the Leuites right ought to cease we answere we admit the conclusion All the Leuites right ceaseth that is that Leuiticall assignation but the perpetuall ordinance of tithes as it was before Leuy can not be taken away by the particular assignation Another obiection he frameth thus If it were naturall then it could not bee changed nor altered by any dispensation wee answere hoc illud est This is the great obiection that carried Abulensis and all the rest to deuise these quirks and subtilties against tithes wee can easily answere that the Popes dispensation heerein was vnlawfull and impious but all meanes must bee attempted that mans wit can deuise beefore the Popes high crowne bee touched This is the obiecton which onely was thought vnanswerable all the rest are but brought to fill vp a number as doing their seruice to this now this reason is with vs of no strength what accompt soeuer the Papists make of it and euen among them there are diuerse which doubt not but that the Pope doth dispense with some things euen against the law of nature as appeareth by those cases which are called casus Papales which are drawen also into verses beginning thus Si sit Catholicus papam non iudicat vllus Wherein it is said that hee hath power to dispense in exemptions and periurie to dispense with that which is cursed anathemate to dispense against all the rules and canons of the Church to dispense with that sinne which is greater then adultery and such like and therefore no maruaile if he dispensed against the right of tithes And these are the great reasons that Abulensis bringeth against this question Bellarmine bringeth but one argument and that to proue tithes not ceremonial but iudicial he saith tithes are not ceremoniall but iudiciall nam non ordinantur immediatè ad colendum deum sed ad aequitatem inter homines but how doth he proue this for faith he God commanded tithes should bee payed to Leuy because Leuy was the tenth part of Israell that there might be a proportion betweene their estate and the rest we answere this reason for paying tithes is found in no Scripture but in Bellarmines idle conceipt who afterward misliking it ouerthroweth it and findeth Leuy to be the twelft part of Israell Againe if this were a reason to pay tithes then ought not tithes to haue beene payed before the law for this reason had no place when Abraham and Iacob payed tithes farther the reasons that are in the Scripture doe ouerthrow this reason for God assigneth tithes to Leuy out of his owne proper right beecause all tithes are the Lords Leuit. 27. If the Lord before and in the law had right to all tithes then this true reason both taketh away Bellarmins false reason and proueth that false which Bellarmine saith tithes had no immediate ordination to the worship of God Last of all if this reason conclude any thing against vs that tithes are not morall because they haue no immediate ordination to the worship of God by the same reason it holdeth likewise against all maintenance of ministers yet they who denie vs tithes graunt that some maintenance is due and part of the morall law Now looke what ordination the maintenance which they yeeld vs hath to the worship of God the same we proue of tithes but Bellarmine saith asmuch for vs as wee can desire certum est saith