understand 1. Before the laws as in the example of Abraham and Iacob 2. Vnder the lawe where we have both precept and practise 3. In time of the Gospel when and where the Gospel hath beene knowne and embraced By all persons I understand both faithfull and insidels testimonies whereof you have heard already By all places I understand 1. the severall and particular Kingdomes of Christendome not some one or fewe but all 2. not some heathen as the Romanes alone or Grecian only but both nay all whosoever are recorded to acknowledge a Deity or at least we read of none that did not with out punishment Quis enim aesos impune putarit esse Deos But against this argument there are brought diverse instances first against the practise of the heathen secondly against the practise of the Church of God For the heathen these objections are made 1. They had no compulsary law to compell them 2. They paide not necessarily Seld. pag. 28 but arbitrarily 3. They paid not annually nor of all things not to all Deities nor by all men For answer of all which in a word first what needed they any law to compell them when as they were a law to themselves drawne thereunto either by the law of nature more forceable then any humane law or else by traditionall custome from the practise of their forefathers which to us is above all and to them was alwaies in the nature and force of a law they not having alwaies their lawes written as we now further then in the customary practise of the country Secondly for the making of lawes for the paiment of tithes they well could not in that they paid tithes to severall Deities so that to have made a law for one had beene to draw the envy of another Deitie upon them As for the second that they paid them not upon necessitie but voluntarily we shall finde the contrary confessed by the Tithes-Historian pag. 31. where recording the vow of Cypselus of Corinth he saith that Cypselus had speciall regard to the tenth part of the goods of the Citizens as competent to a Deitie and in the same page relateing out of Herodotus the practise of Cyrus tells us that Cyrus being admonished of Croesus would not have the goods of the Lydians ransact by the souldiers because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were necessarily to be tithed to Iupiter and that not only as a vow but as a custome otherwise as Mr. Mountague observeth it would have beene a poore argument to have made the souldiers desist from their right in the spoile And as for annuall paiment he confesseth pag. 30. that it was a custome to bring unto Apollo yearly first fruits in tenths and a little before speaking of the Syphnians he saith that they gave yearely the tithes of their mines which they found in the Isle And Mr. Mountague further Pag. 493. addeth that when covetousnes made them leave paying that tribute of tithes the sea brake in among them and swallowed up those mines a just vengeance of God upon detainers of divine right by dishonouring God to loose all And in the last place where he averreth all paid not nor of all things nor to all Deities let him or any shew as much in the negative as wee have shewed in the affirmative and we will yeeld the bucklers and yet I see no reason why the proofe of a negative after the affirmative prooved should stand good against Gods right that will not stand good against an earthly Kings no not against the right of a private person But graunt that all this were true that is alledged that they paid not yearely nor of all things c. Were they not heathen in whome the light of nature being darkened might faile in the perfect performāce of such things as nature required Certainly if we faile having a greater light in the performance not onely of this duty but of things of greatest moment especially when gaine and profit come in our way let us not expect perfection from them though in naturall things howsoever what they did prooves the truth of my former conclusion in that they paid neither an eighth ninth eleventh or twelfth but alwaies a strict tenth or at least nomine decima demonstrating thereby the tenth to be due de jure howsoever they failed de fallo to pay it in the full proportion or quota The reasons brought to infringe the practise of tithes under the Gospel are two both taken from matter of fact The first is the practise of the primitive Church in the daies of the Apostles who neither received tithes nor challenged them together with the setling of the paiment of tithes in all particular countries where the Gospel hath been received which paiments have been setled according to the particular lawes customes of particular countries First for answer we say that a facto ad jus non valet consequentia it was not done thus and thus and therefore it ought not to have been otherwise is no good consequence either in Logicke or Lawe much lesse in Divinitie Secondly the Church in those times of the Apostles and many yeares after was not setled but was in great persecution and so not a fit time for Ministers to be forward in urgeing that question least as Saint Paul spake of himselfe they should have seemed to have sought theirs more then them And to reason thus we may as well say that the Israelites paid no tithes in the wildernes nor in their captivities therefore they were not due at any time Thirdly those that were not converted paid according to their auncient customes unto their Idoll-Gods those that were willingly brought all and laid them at the Apostles feete but the Church was no sooner setled but tithes were demaunded and readily by way of thankefulnes to God paid when and where the Gospel was from time to time received and embraced as the particular graunts specified by Mr. Selden himselfe will sufficiently witnesse The second reason opposing the practise for the times of the Gospel is grounded upon the doctrine of the Schoolmen and practise of the Church first set abroach by Alexander Seld. p. 158. Hales Their doctrine was that tithes for the quota are not due now in the time of the Gospel either by the Morall lawe or the lawe of Nature but onely jure Ecclesiastico by the judiciall lawes and constitutions of the Church beeing grounded upon the equitie of a mutuall distribution betwixt the Ministers and the people that as the one gives spirituall things so the other should afford unto them of their temporall things The practise of the Church was in suffering the conveyances of Parochiall rites in tithes to bee diverted unto the maintenance of Monkes and Friars in their cloysters which saith the Tithes-Historian the Church would never have suffered Pag. 159. had they formerly held tithes due to be paid by divine right either lege scriptâ or natâ But these reasons to
same for blessing with Melchisedecks yea with Aarons and therefore the Law of our Priesthood for receiving tithes must be the same That law the abrogating whereof dishonours God Arg. â— and makes the Ministers of the Gospel inferiour to the Ministers of the Law cannot be temporary but of divine constitution which cannot be abrogated but to maintaine the law for the right of the tithe in kinde to be abrogate and not in force tends to the dishonour of God and making the Ministers of the Gospel inferiour to them under the Lawe â—rgò c. The maâ—or is thus prooved That law the abrogating whereof leaves the Ministers of God under the Gospel without a certaine rule for maintenance dishonours God in making him more regardlesse of his Ministers under the Gospel then under the Law and makes them inferiour to the Leviticall Priesthood but to maintaiâ—e the Law commanding tithes for the quota to be abrogate is to leave the Ministers of the Gospel without a certaine rule for maintenance ergò c. The major is evident by two reasons 1. Because maintenance is one of those foure necessary duties required of all men towards their Ministers now in the time of the Gospel the other three beeing loue countenance obedience 2. In regard of those manifold mischieses and inconveniences which must necessarily follow in leaving them to a voluntary stipende or contribution of man without a certaine rule given by God himselfe as 1. Flatterie or suspition of flatterie in beeing thought to have some persons in admiration because of advantages which cannot be in tithes 2. Dissimulation and deceit in making as though they received little when as they have much which cannot be in tithes 3. By this meanes the poorer sort are either much disgraced in regard of that little they haue or else are forced to straine themselves above their abilitie to their utter ruine as wofull experience makes too evident in such places where Ministers live on contribution whereas in the payment of tithes every man rests content with Gods blessing 4. Ostentation in some in giving much and disdaining those that give lesse which cannot be in tithes If it be objected that all this may be amended by a sett stipende arising from goods proper to the Church I aske what they understand by Church goods If they meane tithes which are the proper goods of the Church how can any man proportion a stipende better then God himselfe hath done to give every Minister the tithes of those people committed to his charge If by goods proper to the Church they understand such voluntary offerings as shall be brought in by the faithfull into the common treasurie of the Church or otherwise shall bee rated by authority upon every particular person then I demande what contribution can be so sure what stipend established by man so certaine but that either by the wickednes of the Magistrates who have power to establish or inconstancy of those by whome it is bee paide or covetousnes of those by whome it is to bee collected and gathered is subject either to change or else to enforce Gods Ministers to the former evils as is evident in all places where Ministers live either upon such voluntary contributions or set stipends But more of this hereaster The minor is thus prooved If there bee a lawe or rule it is for more or lesse or the same certaine due if it bee for more why doe they withhold it if for lesse then are we in worse case then the Leviâ—es but whether it be for more or lesse let them shew us the rule and we shall willingly consent if they cannot then it remaines necessarily that the same rule lawe must stand in force for us now under the Gospel which was in force for the Priesthood under the Lawe If they say that Paul sets downe a rule and law 1. COR. 9. GAL. 6. 6. I say then it is a divine lawe not humane for more honourable maintenance not for lesse as all the reasons plainely â—nâ—orce and so whosoever withholdes the tenth is sacrilegious unlesse they will maintaine Code and Statute above Scripture and the lawes and constitutions of men above the lawes and commandements of God But the truth is that neither of those texts are rules or lawes simply but onely comments upon the first lawe first imprinted in mans heart and afterwards given by God himselfe unto Moses and alledged by Paul for backing the same as not onely the reasons there alledged necessarily imply enforce beeing grounded upon the lawe of Nature and the lawe Morall but verse the 14 he concludes it to bee the same law saying â—ic enim constanâ—t c. Even so â—ath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gâ—sped should live of the Gâ—spell Let men then either shew some other statute law given by God or else they must necessarily graâ—nt that Paul â—nâ—orcâ—â—h no other but the first lawe â— But because such is the corruption of mans nature that they are more drawne to the practise of holy duties by the feare of punishment then allured by the force of â—recept and hope of reward take in the last place a reason enforcing this duty drawne from the manifold judgements denounced and threatened by God and no lesse inflicted upon such who have any waies beene detainers of his tithes in all ages or any thing else truely dedicated to â—oly use for the better maintenance of his worship and service where wee shall finde that such things have beene fearefully fatall to all the actors and abettors and their posterity after them And here not to speake of that great punishment of the Iewes mentioned MAL. 3. nor yet of those notorious Sacrilegists of auncient times and in other countries but to keepe our selves at home and to speake onely of such particulars as are fresh in our memory of that great sacriledge begun and â—econded in the daies of King Henry the eighth with the successe of it in all the actors and abettors of the same And first to begin with Cardinall Wolsey the president for future sacriledge in demolishing certaine petty Monasteries and religious houses though to a good intended use for the building of two Colledges the one in Oxford the other in Ipswitch both which as they stand to this day unfinished as a witnes against him of his sinne so not long after suddenly and unexpectedly followed his ruine and overthrow From him come to the Lord Cromwell the instigator of the King to the dissolution of the rest reâ—aâ—ning though to an happy ende even the rooting of Popeâ—y Superstition and Idolatrie out of this kingdome which could never have beene so easily effected if those places had beene left in their beeing and glory yet for neglecting to bee as carefull to tender unto God his due by restoring unto him and his Church his tithes and other due rites as bee was to roote out superstition and take away such places and particulars as were dedicated and
treasuries and store-houses but commanâ—ed it should be kept for the use and benefit of the Priests Levites in the store-house of the Temple verse 11. 12. If any shall object that this was for the second tithe onely not for the tithe of inheritance I answer if they were so strict in the payment of this tithe which was a second full supernumerary tithe ovâ—â— and above the first then much more in the payment of the first which God challenâ—eth as his right of inheritance which they never omitted to pay when the other were generally neglected as may bee gathered NEHEMIAH 13. Neither is the Gospell without either precept or practise for the necessary performance of this dutie witnes the manner of Christ his reprooving the Scribes and Pharises MATT. 23. 2â— where he infers a necessitie of tything even in the smallest matters whether wee understand the phrase actively or passively either in the payer or receiver Woe unto you Scribâ—â— and Phariâ—â—â— Hypocrites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for you pay tithe of mint and â—nise and câ—mmine have omitted the weâ—ghtiâ—â— matters of the Iâ—â—â— indgement mercie and faith These things ought ye to have done and not to leave the other unâ—one Neither will it suffice to obâ—ect against the text that the Ceremoniall law was then in force and so Christ â—ight 〈◊〉 command it for first how will they answere that distiâ—ctâ—on of Augustine Caeâ—emâ—nta 〈◊〉 â—9 â—â—â— 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christum nâ—c 〈◊〉 â—raâ—â— nec mortifâ—rae â—ost prâ—muâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mortâ—◠〈◊〉 mortiferae inter 〈◊〉 nâ—â—m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 promulgationem 〈◊〉 sâ—â— non morâ—iâ—â—râ— The ceremonies of the â—â—we before Christ were neither deâ—â— nor deaâ—ly after the promulgation of the Goâ—pell 〈◊〉 dâ—â—d and deadly betwixt Christs passion and the promâ—lâ—â—tion of the Gosâ—ell dead but not deadly Where by the pâ—ssion of Christ we understand not his passion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his suffering upon the crosse when hee breatâ—â—d out together with his consummatum est his life but the whole time of his suffering here upon earth especially from the time of Iohn the Baptists beginning to preach and Christ his Baptisme at what time the ceremonies 〈◊〉 1. 2. 〈◊〉 103. 〈◊〉 â— of the lawe began to be dead quoad necessitatem in regard of the necessary observance of them howsoever quoad coâ—venteâ—â—ia vinculum charitatis in respect of conveniencie and to avoide scandall the observation of them was not deadly according to that of Christ MATT. 11. 13. All the Law the Proâ—â—ets prophesica untill Ioha and that of Paul GAL. 3. 24. 25. The lawe was our Schoolmaster to Christ but after that â—â—rth â—s come we are no more under the Schoolmaster Where by the 〈◊〉 and the Prophets is understood totâ— Moâ—is politia seâ—â—conomia constâ—tuâ—io Sacerdotii the whole regiment of Moses Lawe not onely Ceremoniall anâ— Iudâ—ciall but Morall likewise so farre forth as it was to be abâ—ogate together with the I â—gall Preisthood â—o that if Christ had held the payment of tithes as a duty of the Ceremoniall law he would never have set a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon them and have taught them as a duty necessary which ought to bee done and not left undone But that I may remoove all scruple in the second place let us consider that our Saviour Christ makes not the payment of these tithes a Ceremoniall lawe but a Morall yea an Evangelicall lawe of the same nature with judgement mercy and faith distinguishing them onely secundum magis minus which as Logicians teach truely non variant speciem differ not the kinde Besides this of Christ Paul 1. COR. 9. prooves by nine forcible arguments the necessity of the Ministers maintenance now in the time of the Gospell how it ought to bee done Anâ— GALAT. 6. 6. seconding Iacobs vow in this place Let him that is taught communicate unto him that teacheth not in some particular kinde nor yet in grosse a competency out of the whole but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all his goods or in all good things And as for practise witnes the liberality of the Saints in the very dayes of the Apostles who are said to sell all they Act. 4. had and to lay the price at the Apostles feete for their maintenance and releife of the poore distressed brethren And in succeeding aâ—es as the Churches increased and obtayned peace so did the Saints according to the rule of Gods worde and practise of the Saintes establish a setled maintenance of tithes for Gods Ministers as that portion of inheritance which God had allotted them and which might not bee detained without sacriledge The truth Consule Doctore Tileâ—ley in Catal whereof will appeare by the unanimous consent of all the auncient and truely religious Fathers of the Church in all ages with the generall practise of the Saints in all places where and so long as religion was purely and sincerely taught and professed Neither have we onely the consent of holy Church both in doctrine and practise but of the very heathen enforcing the necessitie of this duty Thus Festus as epitomized by Paulus Diaconus speaking of the customes of the Romanes tells us that decima quaeque veteres Diis suis offerebant the auncient gave tithe of all unto their Gods I know the Tithes-Historian together with Ioseph Scaliger feare not to accuse Paulus Diaconus of barbarisme and falsification of Festus and to correct his authority the one putting out quaeque and so denies the generality of tithes of all thinges given by all men restrayning both persons and tithes to some particulars Seld. pag. 29. the other changing Diâ—â— suis into uni tantùm Herculi as if tithes were payd by the Romanes to Hercules only but by what authority or sound ground I know not for mine owne part I see no reason why Paulus Diaconus should not bee as worthy of credit as either yea as both of them sure I am the world and the learned of those times wherein he lived accounted him a man of as great knowledge and judgement and as worthy of credit as either is Divine Scaliger or Antique Mr. Selden Besides say the Romanes had given tithes to Hercules onely yet Festus speakes not of the custome of the Romanes onely but of other Nations likewise and howsoever by his silence he seems to consent with Scaliger in the correction of Paulus Diaconus for uni tantùm Herculi yet himselfe confesseth that neither the Romanes nor their next Pag. 27. neighbours did tithe onely to Hercules but these their arbitrary vowes and thankesgivings I speake in the Historians language were sometimes also payd to other Deities whereof hee names diverse particulars Next to the authority of Festus hee brings in the practise of the Grecians for generall consent Thus Harpocration who saith that the Grecians used to tithe the spoyles of warre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 32. to the Gods And another It
payment of tithes is not necessary but a thing indifferent First I answer that the law of vowing or vowes was Solut. made after Iacob and therefore if there were any such clause in it yet it bound not Iacob if hee say the law made by Moses serves as a rule for all ages why then not the law of tithing which he cannot deny but under the Law was a duty necessary But to draw neer to an answer Vowes saith the Author were to be made of things onely indifferent not necessary I aske then whether wee may sweare to the performance of things necessary if we may then wee may vowe to performe whatsoever wee may sweare to performe but wee may sweare the performance of things necessary ergò Obedience to Kings is a thing necessary ROM 13. 1 but we may sweare obedience to Kings To forsake the Devill and all his workes is a duty necessary but wee may not onely vowe this in baptisme but take the Sacrament after to binde us to the performance of that vowe nay if wee may not vowe things necessary why did Iacob vowe that the Lord should be his God ◠And whereas vowes are defined to bee promissiones spontaneae voluntary promises and actions they are not so tearmed in relation to the substance and matter of the things vowed but to the persons vowing and the law whereby no man is bound necessarily to make a vowe of any thing But for the thing vowed if it be a thing in it's owne nature lawfull to be done be it of things necessary or indifferent it must be performed As for the instance of Iephta's Saul's and the Israelites vowes the things vowed were unlawfull and therefore proove nothing to this question But tithes were Gods owne before as is alleadged then Object was it idlenesse in Iacob to vow them And hee confirmes his assertion thus God forbad the children of Israel to vow their first borne because they were his owne before First I say as before that a law made many yeares after Solut. bindes not for the time past Secondly observe the wickednesse of this man who rather then Iacobs practise shall be of force to proove the divine right of tithes will make Iacob to be both an idle and wicked companion doing things not onely unnecessary but unlawfull Thirdly suppose God had made such a law concerning the first borne what is that to tithes unlesse God had made the like law for them Fourthly where doth he finde such a law wherein God forbad the Israelites to vowe their first borne because they were his I read in the last of Leviticus of such a lawe made concerning the firstlings of beasts as of oxen and sheep but not of man or ought els nay in the same Chapter and elswhere God gives expresse command for the sanctification of the first borne of man though not for the office of Priesthood as before because Levi was now chosen to that office yet to be at Gods disposall and command And for the lawfulnesse of vowing the first borne it is evident in Annas vowing Samuel Lastly in the said Chapter there is a law of tithing expressed both for matter and manner what and how they ought to be paid and how to be redeemed But nothing either in that place or any els impugnes the lawfulnesse of vowing them to the Lord. And thus much for the first argument ARGVMENTUM 11. THe distinction of Parishes was and is humane and of humane constitution not divine therefore tithes are onely humane and of humane constitution If I should deny his proposition say that all distinctiō Respons of Parishes was not is not humane and of humane constitution I could more easily proove my negative then he his affirmative but the consequence is so infirme I may spare that labour For tithes were not therefore given and paid because Parishes were divided but Parishes were divided that tithes might in a convenient and competent manner be conferred upon Gods Ministers according to their merits and the quantitie quality and estate of the persons and places committed to their charge And for the truth of his conclusion I may as well reason thus Set times of prayer of preaching and administring the Sacraments are of humane constitution therefore prayers preaching and the Sacraments are humane But I see the drift of this Gentleman he would have both humane and divine Law to binde all Gods Ministers strictly to their task of preaching c. but the people at libertie what to give them for their paines or at most bound onely by mans law which this Gentleman and those of his opinion hold themselves bound to observe no longer then they shall like and approove of their Ministers And indeed this is one argument whereby hee labours to infringe the divine right of tithes God established no speciall law for the punishment of Object such as should detaine tithes therefore they were not morall But hee forgeteth that as God chose Levi Solut. under the Law and chooseth all lawfully called Ministers under the Gospel to and for his speciall service to teach blesse and pray for his people giving them his owne portion of tithes for their inheritance accounting the honour done to them as done to himselfe the robbing them the robbing of himselfe so hath he promised that he in a speciall manner will be their revenger And it is a fearefull thing to fall into the hands of the living God as the Iewes did often by experience too well know even for this verie sinne in speciall Or if this answer will not satisfy I adde further that as Solon ordaining lawes made none against the sinne of Paricide because he thought no man could be so inhumanely cruell as to commit it so God I speake with reverence to his prescience and omniscience thought no man to bee so gracelesly unthankfull as to deny a tenth to him from whome he received the whole and therefore made no law for the punishment of such oftenders ARGVMENT 111. THe third argument may thus be framed Where there is an end of the worke there the wages cease but the worke in recompence whereof tithes were by God given is at an end therefore tithes The minor they thus proove Tithes were given for the service of the Tabernacle but the Tabernacle and service thereof are at an end ergò The service of the Tabernacle for which God gave tithes consisted in carrying the Tabernacle offering Sacrifices with the performance of other ceremoniall rites and services but all these are ceased ergò For answer though I might justly deny the first proposition Resp that where the worke is changed there must needs be a change of the wages one and the same wages being given for workes of diverse kindes yet I will not insist thercupon but will examine the Levites worke with their wages setting downe certaine Theses as necessary conclusions by way of answer to the former objections First for wages And here not to speake of the first fruits
the law for paiment of the tithe was not simply Ceremoniall or Iudiciall binding the paiment onely to the Iewish Priesthood Secondly that the tenth is that proportion which is simply due unto Gods worship and service Thirdly that the paiment of tithes for the quâ—ta is a Divine Morall law yet standing in force to binde all Christians to pay them unto the Evangelicall Priesthood That the law for paiment of tithes was never simply Ceremoniall c. is thus prooved If the law binding to pay the tenth for the quota were barely Ceremoniall or Iudiciall then were tithes onely due to the Leviticall Priesthood but the tenth was not onely due to the Leviticall Priesthood ergò c. The consequent of the maâ—or is undeniable the minor is thus prooved That which of due was paid to another Priesthood and that by the Leviticall Priesthood was not onely proper and due unto them but tithes were paide by the Leviticall Priesthood of due to another even to him that was the type of the Evangelicall Priesthood therefore not due onely to the Levites The minor is thus prooved That which was paid by Abraham to Melchisedeck was paid by the Levites to another Priesthood but tithes were paid by Abraham to Melchisedeck ergò c. This argument Paul urgeth Hebr. 7. where comparing the Priesthood of Christ with Aarons he makes this one argument to proove Christ his Priesthood the greater in that Levi in Abraham paid tithes unto Mâ—lchisedeck who was thâ— Typicall Priest of the New Testament Whereas the Historian objects that Abrâ—ham paid tithes onely of the spoyles of warre not of all his substance the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying onely the tithe of such spoyles First I answer that both the text of Genesis Chap. 14. 20. and HEBR. 7. 2. speake in generall tearmes that Abraham gave tithes of all and as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie onely the spoyles of warre the Tithes-Histoâ—ian is not aâ— aâ—y agâ—â—ement with himselfe neither indeed can he bee the word bearing a larger signification and therefore I will not stand to aâ—â—wer it But say we should graunt that at this time when Abraham met Mâ—lâ—hise deck he gave the tithe onely of the spoyle of warre yet that infringeth not but at other times hee paid tithes of all And that may appeare first by the emphasis of the Apostle Hebr. 7. 4. where he speakes of the paiment of these tithes of the spoyles as of a greater and more eminent action then the paying of ordinary tithes of his ground saying Now consider how great this man was unto whom the Patriarch gave the tenth not onely of his ordinary substance but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even the tenth of the spoiles Neither will that allegation suffice that is made by Mâ— Cartwright in his Annotations upon the Rhemes Testament that the paiment of tithes was a ceremoniall thing whereby was signified that wee in a tenth offered to Christ doe declare that all we have is his For first if he meane particularly of Abrahams action then Abraham diâ— it either with warrantiâ— or without if with warrantie then was there some law commanding tithes before Mosâ—s if without warrantiâ— then noâ— lawfull and so not commendable and so coâ—sequently not a fit type to signific the duty of the faithfull to Christ Sâ—condâ—y the Apostle in that place bringes not in Abraham paying tithes in the person of all the faithfull but in the person of Levi though true it be that all paid in Abraham Thirdly if it was as we denie not a ceremoniall rite signifying and declaring the dutie of all the faithfull to Christ then it should appeare to be the first quota and proportion whereby to testifie and declare our subjection thankefâ—lnâ—s and obedience And then I aske what wrong hath Christ dâ—ne us under the Gospâ—l that we should not still testifie our obedience and thankfulnes in and by paying at least the same proportion seeing we are not onely the faithfull children of Abraham and have no law for bidding but all enforcing the same duty And here by the way observe with mee two other passages in those Annotations upon the aforenamed place The first is a relation of Possidoniâ—s in the life of Saint Aug in Ser. de temp 2â—9 In Dom. 12 post Trinit Hom. 4â— inter 50 Ser. in Psal 146. Augustine wherein hâ—â— would make Saint Augustine an enemie to the custoâ—e of paying tithes in the quota direâ—â—ly against his owne peremptoâ—y assertion in all his Tractaâ—â—s The second is a misconstruing of Saint Ierome noâ— only against his generall text but the sense râ—les of Gâ—aÌ„mer for whereas â— Ierome inveighing against the covetousnes and licentiousnes of the Cleargie in those times thus concludes Si quasi Levita sacerdos vivo de decimiâ— alâ—ari Ad Nepot de vit â—ler 〈◊〉 iens altaris oblatione susâ—â—â—tor habens victum vestitum his câ—nâ—enâ—us ero which in râ—ght English is that so long as I live as a Levite and Priest upon tithes or other offerings due to chose that serve at the altar I will rest my selfe contented though it onely suffice for food and raiment iâ—tâ—mâ—ting that as long as he lived upon Goâ—s allowance it should suâ—fice were it never so small assuring himselfe oâ— Goâ—s â—lâ—sâ—ing in and upon his owne ordinance There the construction of Saint Ieromes minde is this That if lesse then a tenth will finde him things necessary for his honest maintenance Ierome will not stand upon a title of tithes 2. The trâ—th of this may appeare in the practise of Iacob in this vowe for Iacob vowes not this of paying tithes de novo as a worke not formerly done no more then he doth the other that the Lord shall bee his God but he vowes that which according to the auncient lawe of God and practise of his fathers he was to performe when God should bestowe these blessings upon him only by this vowe he bindes himselfe to a more strict carefull performance of what he ought it being lawfull to make vowes not onely in things indifferent but in things necessary and commanded The second thing which I propounded to proove was that the tenth even for the quota is the certaine rule of proportion due unto the Ministers of God which serve at the altar and which without sacriledge cannot bee detayned from them the which I thus proove That for which we have the precept of God by authority of his word in time commanding the practise of all people in all places and that in all ages and that of duty Vox populi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eâ—â— vox 〈…〉 Cic. 〈◊〉 1. readily performing for the maintenance of Gods worship that must necessarily bee the rule for the practise of all men nor may it be altered till we have precept to the contrary but of this nature hath beene the practise for the payment of tithes therefore c. By all ages I