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
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
God Then if it must be graunted that one of these three is Gods ordinance almes this competency or tithes It is certaine first that almes in this point and for this vse are not ordained by God it is no lesse certaine that this competencie is not Gods ordinance because God no where appointeth it the Church neuer vsed it where vpon it followeth that for the maintenance of the ministery there is no other ordinance then tithes CHAP. II. How Tithes stood before the Law FOR the better satisfaction to the reader and seruice to the truth the labour would not seeme vnprofitable if wee drew as it were the story of this question along from the beginning to this time which thing cannot be done exactly because this matter is not remembred exactly by the auncients and wee must not so much stand vpon narration as vpon disputation but out of such remembrances as I could light on I thought good to obserue how men of all ages haue thought of this point that when it appeareth that the opinions which I reiect are altogether new and without any testimonie or shew of antiquitie men may be intreated more indifferently to think of the matter at least I may seeme not vnworthie of pardon if I erre in this point when it shall be seene that I follow not onely the reasons which seeme best but all antiquity none contradicting till of late yeeres For orders sake we wil first consider how this stood before the law then how vnder the Law afterward how in the Apostles times and somewhat after Last of all how in the time of the fathers Before the law was giuen we finde tithes vsed by the Godly as a part of Gods seruice First we will shew that by the law of nature euery man was bound to giue something to God of those temporall blessings which God giueth then it shall appeare that this somewhat was turned into tithes Gen. 4. It is thus written Cain brought an oblation to the Lord of the fruit of the ground Abel also brought of the firstlings of his sheepe and of the fat of them and the Lord had respect to Abel and his offering but vnto Cain to his offring he had no regard It is expresly noted in the text that Abel offered the best of his flock de primogenitis pinguissimis the first fairest and fattest which shewed the sinceritie of his heart In Cain no such thing is noted but the contrary vnderstood whether Cain did offer the tenth of the profit of his ground and Abel the tenth of his sheepe that question I moue not heere there is nothing expresly eyther for it or against it but out of these words this I obserue First that to offer to God of such goods as God doth blesse men withall was from the beginning accounted a part of the seruice of God for Cain and Abel both offered knowing it was looked for at their hands Secondly it is hence manifest that they who offer their goods to God may not offer the worst and serue God like S. Antony his pig with that which they make least account of but they who serue not God with the best of their goods are found to be followers of Cain Thirdly it appeareth also that if there were not neither euer had beene any ministerie ordained yet notwithstanding men should haue stood bound to offer of the best of their goods to God for this offering seemeth to haue beene before a ministery was established If any shall contend heerein that these offerings were not tithes I striue not though with faire probabilitie I might but thus much appeareth that by the law of nature presently after the creation men did thinke in conscience themselues bound to giue the best of their goods to God as knowing that this was the will of God It is likewise to be noted that God who from the beginning as heere we see hath a right in euery mans goods may dispose his owne right as it best pleaseth him but in disposing this his right to his ministers hee disposeth and giueth it by the name of tithes And this is that right which we seeke out not what man bestoweth but what God giueth to his Church out of his owne right which right of the Lord in euery mans goods is declared heere in the beginning and the same right of the Lord in euery mans goods remaineth vnto the end of the world This right which the Lord hath in euery mans goods himselfe nameth tithes and who knoweth it better then he When a man would offer this right to God who knoweth how to offer him his owne who knoweth how to keepe such a rule in this action as to assure himselfe that the thing which he offereth is the Lords part as being neither more nor lesse then that which God hath manifested to be his owne part It followeth therefore that in offering to God this right men must either offer tithes or else what themselues list not what God prescribeth Now these offerings whatsoeuer they were were offered as tithes and whosoeuer offered in this sort afterward offered tithes because God had manifested that the right which from the beginning he hath in euery mans goods is tithes And therefore as soone as it can bee shewed that ther was a Priest then will it also appeare that tithes were payed vnto the Priest of the Lord. Now in the 14. of Gen. there is expresse mention of the Priest of the most high God and withall expresse mention of tithes payed vnto him the words are these And Melchisedech king of Salem brought foorth bread and wine and hee was a Priest of the most high God and hee blessed Abraham c. And Abraham gaue him tithes of all And vnto these words that which the Apostle obserueth Heb. 7. where he proueth two things first the greatnesse of Christs priesthood aboue the Leuiticall this hee proueth because Melchisedech did blesse Abraham for without all doubt the lesse is blessed of the greater Then he proueth not onely the greatnesse but the perpetuall and vnchaungeable estate of Christs priesthood wherein it differed also from the priesthood of Leuy This he proueth in Melchisedech and by him in Christ because Leuy in Abraham payed tithes to Christ in Melchisedech for saith the Apostle heere men that die receiue tithes but there hee receiueth them of whom it is witnessed that hee liueth Out of these words wee draw these obseruations First that vnder the law of nature tithes were to bee payed to the priest of the most high God for these things are expresly deliuered that Melchisedech was priest of the most high God that Abraham gaue him tithes of all Secondly that this practise of the patriarks is commended by the Apostle in the new Testament which sheweth that is no wil-worship deuised by them but warranted from God therefore we conclude it was vndoubtedly ordained by God albeit the time and first institution hereof be not exactly
yeald without better proofes then we haue yet seene this is so far from crossing the right of tithes that rather it confirmeth all more fully for if Abraham gaue tithes of the spoyles much more then of his owne goods the whole course of the Apostle his speach proueth no lesse for how can any mans conceit be satisfied with the tithes of the spoyles onely considering the Apostle speaketh so much of Abraham his paying tithes insisting so long in it drawing an argument of such weight from it he whose kindred is not counted among them receiued tithes of Abraham ver 6. heere men that die receiue tithes but ther he receiueth them of whom c. ver 8. Leuy also which receiueth tithes payed tithes in Abraham ver 9. If there were no other tithes giuen by Abraham to Melchisedech but of those spoyles onely why is this compared with Liuiticall tithes which were payed yeerely would the Apostle vse this manner of speech of one onely action vnlesse it shewed the common vse and practise how tithes were then payed to the priest as by common vse and practise they were afterward payed to the Lenites By this then it appeareth out of the story of Melchisedech that tithes were and are to be payed to Christ alwayes aswell after as before the law Let vs consider the next testimony we finde in storie before the law the next is Gen. 28. where Iacob voweth to pay tithes of all that God will giue him the wordes are these Then Iacob vowed a vow saying If God will keepe me in this iourney which I goe and will giue mee bread to eate and clothes to put on so that I come againe to my fathers house in safety then shall the Lord be my God And this stone which I haue set vp as a piller shall be Gods house and of all that which thou shalt giue me I will giue the tenth to thee Out of these words it appeareth that it was the generall opinion of the godly before the law giuen that tithes ought to be giuen to God for otherwise Iacob did offend vnlesse he knew that this thing pleased God as being appointed by him But because Abulensis out of this place would proue tithes not to belong to the law of nature that matter would be examined his reason is because Iacob vowed tithes now a vow saith hee is not of those things which belong to the law of nature But Abulensis himselfe perceiuing that this proposition is not true generally frameth an obiection against himselfe that by remouing the obiection be might the better settle that which he taketh to be the truth his obiection is that a man may vow that which belongeth to the law of nature as not to commit adultry which obiection he answereth thus a man may not vow such things with condition but absolutely Now saith he Iacob vowed tithes with condition therefore they are not such things as are contained in the law of nature Bellarmins words are much more peremptorie impium fuisset vouere decimas si absoluté fuisset obligatus eas soluere These words indeed being examined by the popish doctrine of vowes may stand as a glos fit enough for a corrupt text but being axamined by the truth of God they shall finde no place to stand in First where Abulensis saith a man may not vow a thing belonging to the law of nature conditionally it appeareth to be false because as himselfe yeeldeth a man may vow not to commit adultery so he must yeeld that a man may likewise vow to honour his parents if God will prolong their liues this is conditionall and no lesse lawfull then the other and he that maketh it can keepe it onely conditionally so long as God will suffer his parents to liue if they dye he is freed from the possibilitie of performing his vow so he that voweth tithes can vow them no other way but conditionally if God will blesse him with goods as Iacob doth for it he haue nothing he is freed from the possibilitie of performing his vow Other obiections of Abulensis shall be answered in their place Though the obiection be answeared yet somewhat may happely stick in the minde of the reader and we as seeking a truth would cast all obiections without fauouring for I protest I haue so captiued my sences to the truth that against the knowen truth I dare not stirre therefore I will freely open what I can To that obiection that no morall thing may be vowed because we are bound without a vow to performe such things this answere may stand that albeit we be bound without a vow to such things yet it is lawfull to vow them that we may be stirred vp with more exact care and zeale to such duties as not onely God hath bound vs but we also binde our selues Now that it is lawfull to binde our selues to those duties whereto God bindeth vs it appeareth by the commended practise of the godly at all times The people were bound to serue the Lord in the time of Asa no lesse then at other times yet they made a couenant and sware to serue the Lord 2. Chron. 15. 12. 14. Dauid was bound without an oath or vow to keepe the righteous iudgements of the Lord yet he bound himselfe by an oath I haue sworne and will performe it to keepe thy righteous iudgements Psal. 119. 106. And whereas Dauid speaketh so often of paying his vowes vnto the Lord the thing vowed and to be payed is morall Psal. 50. 14. Offer to God praise and pay thy vowes to the most high Psal. 56. 12. Thy vowes are vpon mee O God I will render praise to thee for thou hast deliuered my soul from death c. And albeit things ceremoniall might be vowed vnder the law yet no otherwise but as they drew to some morall duetie And therefore when the people in vowing things ceremoniall did so stick in the ceremonie that they looked no farther then are such vowes reproued and they are taught that the vowes which please God are obedience a contrite heart and such like This which I haue said will answere another obiection If tithes were alwaies the Lordes wee cannot vow them for a vow must bee of a thing that is ours Iacob then vowing tithes sheweth that they were not alwaies the Lords the answere is plaine out of that which hath bene said It is lawfull to vow vnto the Lord that which is not ours but his For what thing is more the Lords and lesse ours then our obedience yet we vow it binding our selues by a new promise to that whereunto the Lord hath bound vs by dutie And therfore as Dauid did vow to performe that obedience to God which otherwise he was bound to doe without a vow so Iacob doth heere vow to pay tithes though tithes be the Lords right when this obedience commeth from a willing minde it is acceptable now a vow serueth to shew a resolued and willing minde Hauing done
with the obiections against this place let vs gather hence such obseruations as may confirme our purpose First it is euident hence that Iacob did not account tithes any part of the iudicials because no part of the iudicials were to be offered in a vow to the Lord but eyther things morall were vowed or ceremoniall as they lead men to morall obedience The reason is vowes were a part of Gods seruice and iudicials belonged not to the seruice of God but were of things common and for the ciuill gouernment of men Secondly it must be considered that the thing wherein Iacobs vow standeth principally is in these words this stone which I haue set vp as a pillar shall be Gods house Some interpretours take this to be the place where Abraham offered Isaac Lyra saith that all interpretours take it generally for that place where Ierusalem stood afterward Iacob saying it should be the house of God signifieth it should be as a temple where God should be worshipped now vnto the house of God he ioyneth tithes Thirdly if therefore the question be mooued in what sort these tithes were payed which are heere vowed whether as things giuen immediately to God as were sacrifices or vowed to God that is to the priest of the most high God I would gladly learne of other in such questions but in the meane time vntill I can learne a better answere I thinke it best to vnderstand the manner of Iacobs paying tithes by the practise of his grandfather Abraham who payed them to the priest of the most high God And therefore Iacob after that example vowing to pay tithes may best be vnderstood to pay them to the priest Thus far hauing spoken of the time before the law so far foorth as scipture speaketh of tithes before we come to the time vnder the law let vs consider how heathen men hauing not the knowledge of the law of God but onely directed by a glimps of the light of nature did iudge that tithes were to be payed to such gods as they worshipped wherein howsoeuer they were corrupt yet in that corruption may be seene some sparks of the light of nature before the law I will not bring all but onely of many testimonies will shew a fevv wherby a man may iudge of the rest and vnderstand how this question hath beene conceiued euen among the heathen Cyrus king of Persia when he had ouercome the Lydians offered the tithes of all to Iupiter Among the Romans the custome was ancient of offering tithes to their gods Camillus vowed tithes to the goddesse called Mater Matuta in case hee should ouercome the Ueians After the victory in low of the tenth a cup of Gold was sent to Delphi weighing eight talents as Plutarch witnesseth in the same place It is reported of Lucullus that hee grevv rich because he obserued the vse of paying tithes to Hercules For that this was an ancient custome among the Romanes Macrobius proueth out of Varro who writeth that it was the common custome among the anucients vouere decimam Herculi Diodorus Siculus opening the reason of that custome saith that when Hercules was friendly entertained by Potitius Pinarius he promised a happie life to such as should offer him the tithes of all their goods which practise he saith remained in Rome till his time multi enim Romanorum non solū medio cui sensu sed qui ditissimi suat habiti decimas Herculi vouerunt posteaque fortunatio res facti bona sua ad quatuor talentorum millia Herculi sacrarunt In which place hee reporteth the same of Lucullus which after him Plutarch obserued Xenophon witnesseth that others vsed to pay tithes to Apollo Neither was this thing obserued onely among the ciuill nations but euen so far as the sence of manhoode reached it was spread also among the barbarous people Plinie writing of the Sabaeans and Aethiopians saith that in the spices which those countries yeeld abundantly the marchants may not meddle with any before the Priests haue laid out the tenth to their gods And which one generall testimony may stand in place of many particulars Festus saith Decima quaeque veteres dijs suis offerebant Which vse being so generall among all nations doth shew that euen from Noah it was dispersed among all people though much corrupt in them yet bearing in it selfe euident signes that it came from the incorrupt light of nature before the law giuen For what other reason can be giuen why such an apparant resemblance of Gods truth should bee kept and dispersed so far among all nations And heereupon I take it Franciscus Iunius departing from the iudgement of other learned men whom otherwise he reuerenceth vvas moued to say thus much decimae iure omni post hominum memoriam deo fuerunt sacrae What is that iure omni but aswell vvritten in the consciences of naturall men fortified by priuiledges of princes as expressely declared in the word of God Thus hauing declared so far as wee can learne how tithes stood before the law let vs consider the same in the time of the law CHAP. III. How tithes stood vnder the Law Where it is prooued that then this constitution of Tithes was neither ceremoniall nor iudiciall but morall THis being first out of controuersie that during all that time between the law first giuen and last abrogated tithes were to be payed to the Leuits by the commandement of God the first question may bee whether tithes had their first institution and beginning in the law Wee aunswere shortly tithes were not first instituted in the lavv but long before euen from the beginning What then was instituted in the lavv all that vvhich concerning tithes was instituted in the law was that tithes should bee assigned to the Leuites so long as they serued the Tabernacle this will appeare if wee consider the first and most principall places wherin tithes are mentioned in the law The first is Leuit. 27. the words are these All tithes of the land both of the seede of the ground and of the fruit of the trees is the Lords it is holy vnto the Lord. Euery tithe of bullocke and sheepe c. This is the first place that speaketh of tithes in which words there is neither institution nor assignation but a simple declaration of the Lords right And heereunto the next place Behold I haue giuen the children of Leuy all the tenth of Israell for an inheritance for their seruice which they serue in the Tabernacle of the Congregation These two places are first in order and principall vnto which wee must refer all that which in the law is spoken of tithes the first testimonie declareth the Lords right the second sheweth that out of his owne right the Lord assigneth them to Leuy I haue giuen them to the children of Leuy It containeth the end and condition of the assignation for the Lord assigneth tithes to Leuy onely for the time of their
the expresse approbation of God so that if all the men of the world should agree to change tithes yet this would not make it lawfull without expresse warrant from God who hath appropriated tithes to himselfe and out of his owne right assigneth them to the maintenance of the ministerie Thirdly what reason should moue any man to thinke it sacriledge to take away lands giuen to the Church albeit giuen for superstitious vses and yet thinke it no sacriledge to take away or change tithes which were not giuen for superstitious vses but for maintenance of preaching For hee that alloweth some other prouision in place of tithes graunteth that to take away tithes in some case is not sacriledge If the restitution of some prouision in place of tithes could salue the Sacriledge why may not the Sacriledge of men bee excused who take away as much of the Church lands as are at the value of tenne thousand pounds and in place thereof giue tenne pounds For when any thing is taken away that a thing of the same value should bee restored who can expect and and who shall bee iudge if then to giue some thing in place of that which is taken away salue it from the crime of Sacriledge who seeth not to what a wretched estate the Church must needes bee brought for may not all bee taken away and something bee giuen backe in place thereof and yet that something bee as good as nothing But they who admit that tithes may bee taken away from the Church doe it with this caution so that a sufficient prouision bee left This is a castle in the aier that neuer stoode on the earth For if wee speake of the ordinary maintenance of the preaching ministerie a sufficient maintenance is not neither at any time hath beene without tithes and in this point the world is not like to alter Then to speake of a sufficient maintenance without tithes is but a conceit in the braines of some men which neuer was brought into action neuer will be God allowing a sufficient maintenance to the ministery nameth it tithes Now what stipend can man name that will supply the place of tithes I suppose it would much trouble the wisest to name a stipend that would bee sufficient at all times but tithes are sufficient at all times howsoeuer the price of things rise or fall the minister hath his part with his people in all estates by tithes which proportioning of the ministers estate making it able to answere all estates a like whether deare or cheape proceeding from the wisdom of God cannot be bettered or matched by mans wisdom Were it not then much easier to bring that ordinance in vse which standeth so agreable with the lawes of God nature of godly kings then to deuise strange courses which neuer were in vse and being deuised will neuer proue sufficient But let vs returne to the vse of this time whereof wee speake The vse of giuing lands to chiefe Churches whether begun before Urban or by him so much as in him lyeth he confirmeth prouiding that those lands so giuen may bee retained to the vse of the Church such lands and possessions were then giuen to the head Churches of euery countrey and committed to the Bishops who gouerned those Churches as to wise and faithfull stewards to husband the same according to the necessities of the Church through their diocesses It grew afterward in processe of time that the Bishops held those lands for their proper vses but this was from a latter vse the distribution of Church goods being first brought into foure parts and by little and little afterward as authority so power to maintaine that authoritie falling into the hand of one man The former vse was so ancient that it is hard to fetch the beeginning thereof In the time of Urbanus Origen liued for Hierom saith that Origen was 17. yeares old in the tenth yeare of Seuerus and died about the 70. yeare of his age so hee liued long before and after the time wherein Urban sat in the Sea of Rome In his time that order of the Church which before was held in the communitie of all things decaying tithes were accounted due and called for That thus they were accounted in his time it appeareth by these testimonies Quomodo abundat iustitia nostra plusquam Scribarum Pharisaeorum si illi de fructibus terrae suae gustare non audent priusquam primitias sacerdotibus efferant Leuitis decimae separentur ego nihil horum faciens fructibus terrae ita abutar vt sacerdos nesciat Leuites ignoret diuinum altare nonsentiat where Origen for the farther manifestation of his meaning doth distinguish these tearmes lex mandata iustificationes praecepta testimonia but forasmuch as serueth our purpose hee obserueth that it is not written haec est lex decimarum as it is written of things ceremoniall haec est lex paeschae lex Azymorum lex circumcisionis where Origen noteth that this is a mark of a ceremonie for of such it is neuer written saith hee hoc est mandatum Paschae but haec est lex Paschae c. by which he proueth that tithes are no ceremonies and he layeth downe this position Christus nos redemit de maledicto legis non de maledicto mandati nec de maledicto testimonij aut iudiciorum which sentence would bee fauourably expounded as taking usaledictum for the obligation which did bring the curse with it but I seeke out onely the iudgement of Origen for the point in question vpon these reasons he saith plainely hanc ego legem speaking of the law whereby tithes were payed obseruari etiam secundum literam sicut alia nonnulla necessarium puto and againe non videtur huinsmodi anima habere memoriam Dei nec cogiture nec credere quia Deus dederit fructus quos caepit quos iâ—a recondit quasi alienes à Deo si enim â Deo sibi dates crederet sciret vtique munerando Sacerdotes honorare Deum de datis muneribus suis farther he expoundeth that saying Mat. 23. these things you ought to haue done and not to haue left the other vndone to bee a precept no lesse for the vse of Christions then Iewes Out of which testimonies we see plainely what Origen whom Hierom accounteth the most learned of the Fathers esteemeth of tithes Of diuerse things so expresly affirmed by him we may especially obserue two First that Origen who by Hieroms account was borne in the yeare of Christ 188. had receiued from his elders no other knowledge of this question then this that tithes are due among Christians secundum literam aswell as among Iewes Secondly it is to bee obserued that as soone as wee first heare any thing spoken of this question in the church we finde that tithes were not accounted ceremoniall or iudiciall but morall and perpetuall precepts for the Church Now as Origen receiueth and reporteth the
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.