TITHES
Examined
and
Proued
to
bee
due
to
the
Clergie
by
a
diuine
right
.
Whereby
the
contentious
and
prophane
Atheists
as
also
the
dissembling
Hypocrites
of
this
age
,
may
learne
to
honour
the
Ministers
and
not
to
defraude
them
,
and
to
Rob
the
Church
.
The
Contents
heereof
is
set
downe
in
the
Page
next
following
.
Written
by
George
Carleton
Batchelour
in
Diuinitie
.
Printed
at
London
by
T.
Este
,
for
Clement
Knight
dwelling
in
Paules
Church-yard
at
the
signe
of
the
Holy
Lambe
,
1606.
The
contents
of
this
Booke
.
|
CHAP.
|
FOL
.
|
|
1
The
state
of
the
question
is
set
downe
,
and
the
truth
confirmed
.
|
1
|
|
2
How
Tithes
stood
before
the
Law
.
|
b
4.
|
|
3
How
Tithes
stood
vnder
the
Law
.
Where
it
is
prooued
that
then
this
constitution
of
tithes
was
neither
ceremoniall
nor
iudiciall
,
but
morall
.
|
11
|
|
4
How
Tithes
stood
in
the
time
of
the
new
Testament
.
|
21
|
|
5
How
Tithes
stood
in
the
ages
of
the
Church
after
the
Apostles
,
wherein
the
point
in
question
is
confirmed
by
the
testimonie
of
Fathers
without
contradiction
,
vntill
Antichrist
by
vsurped
authoritie
disordered
the
Church
.
|
24
|
|
6
The
obiections
answered
,
and
the
point
in
question
confirmed
.
|
35
|
To
the
most
Reuerend
Father
in
God
,
my
very
good
Lord
,
the
Lord
Archbishop
of
Canterbury
his
Grace
,
Primate
and
Metropolitane
of
all
England
,
and
one
of
his
Maiesties
most
Honourable
Priuie
Counsell
.
SVch
hath
beene
the
preiudice
of
the
times
(
most
reuered
Father
in
God
)
not
in
this
age
onely
,
but
in
many
ages
of
the
world
heeretofore
:
that
many
truthes
haue
lien
either
neglected
,
as
couered
in
the
dust
,
or
oppressed
by
the
countenance
and
multitude
of
such
as
commonly
are
ready
to
condemne
the
thing
,
which
they
will
not
vouchsafe
to
vnderstand
.
The
feare
of
which
censures
hath
moued
me
to
suppresse
for
a
long
time
,
that
which
I
had
written
of
this
question
.
In
which
purpose
I
should
still
haue
continued
,
if
the
reasons
of
other
had
not
more
preuailed
with
me
then
mine
owne
opinion
.
Being
therefore
perswaded
of
your
graces
fauourable
acceptance
,
I
haue
presumed
to
offer
this
as
a
pledge
of
my
dutie
,
which
as
it
was
intended
for
the
seruice
of
the
Church
,
so
to
whom
may
it
more
worthily
bee
offered
then
to
him
,
who
as
in
place
,
so
in
care
and
resolution
sitteth
to
aduance
the
good
estate
of
the
Church
.
In
offering
heereof
my
case
is
strange
and
singular
,
for
I
must
do
it
with
protestation
,
that
I
am
far
off
from
thinking
that
the
thing
for
which
I
plead
will
or
can
be
effected
,
onely
the
opinion
which
many
haue
conceiued
of
your
Graces
wisedome
and
courage
,
for
the
aduancement
of
the
Churches
oppressed
estate
,
doth
incourage
mee
also
to
thinke
that
by
your
Graces
care
the
oppressions
of
the
Church
may
be
mollified
,
if
not
remooued
:
that
the
malice
of
iniurious
customes
and
prescriptions
against
the
Church
may
be
abated
:
that
the
vse
of
impropriating
may
now
at
least
be
staied
from
proceeding
to
any
further
greauance
of
the
Church
.
In
which
seruice
of
the
Church
,
as
you
shall
heereafter
leaue
a
memorable
name
to
your selfe
:
so
in
the
meane
time
you
shall
stir
vp
the
prayers
of
many
for
your
preseruation
and
continuance
for
the
good
of
the
Church
of
God
,
who
with
his
plentifull
graces
blesse
and
direct
your
wayes
to
his
glory
and
the
comfort
of
his
Church
,
through
Iesus
Christ
.
Your
Graces
in
duetie
and
in
the
seruice
of
the
Church
to
be
commaunded
.
George
Carleton
.
To
the
Reader
.
SEing
wee
are
fallen
into
these
last
times
,
times
dangerous
and
filled
with
much
euill
,
wherein
the
furtherances
of
pietie
doe
dayly
decrease
,
and
the
Church
her selfe
euen
with
that
small
portion
which
shee
hath
left
,
is
become
an
vsuall
praie
,
either
to
the
prophane
Atheist
,
that
will
violently
rob
her
,
or
to
the
cunning
hippocrite
that
vnder
pretence
of
long
prayers
will
deuoure
Gods
house
:
I
thought
it
fit
to
recommend
this
learned
treatise
to
the
indifferent
reader
,
that
men
of
place
in
the
common
wealth
,
indued
with
knowledge
to
support
the
truth
,
may
make
a
conscience
to
assist
the
clergie
for
obtaining
their
owne
right
,
least
vnder
coulour
of
some
vaine
title
or
pretense
of
custome
,
the
Lord
himselfe
complaine
both
against
them
and
vs
,
that
his
house
is
a
house
of
prayer
,
and
we
haue
made
it
a
den
of
theeues
.
Our
land
,
I
confesse
,
is
faire
and
blessed
like
the
kingdome
of
Canaan
,
but
many
of
the
people
are
like
the
Anakims
,
that
eate
vp
the
clergie
thereof
:
and
though
Iosias
were
a
good
king
,
yet
the
times
were
euill
,
and
a
punishment
this
people
is
stronger
then
we
are
,
come
let
vs
work
wisely
with
them
,
least
they
multiply
,
Now
I
doubt
not
but
the
diligent
perusing
of
this
treatise
shall
so
perswade
the
consciences
of
all
that
are
not
alreadie
forestalled
by
some
great
sinnes
,
that
tithes
are
the
Lords
portion
,
holy
to
himselfe
,
that
this
portion
he
hath
giuen
to
his
ministers
that
serue
at
the
Altar
,
and
so
consequently
that
they
may
not
safely
detaine
that
from
the
Clergy
which
belongs
vnto
them
,
but
rather
make
restitution
with
al
humilitie
,
and
desire
the
Lord
with
penitent
harts
to
receiue
at
our
hands
the
tenth
part
,
which
in
a
peculiar
manner
holily
is
his
owne
portion
(
for
by
another
right
,
the
cattell
are
his
,
Lambeth
.
Ianu.
4.
1606.
WILLIAM
COVELL
.
CHAP.
I.
The
state
of
the
question
is
set
downe
,
and
the
truth
confirmed
.
COncerning
Tithes
(
so
farre
as
I
could
learne
)
there
haue
beene
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
The
third
is
,
that
tithes
are
due
to
the
Ministers
of
the
Church
,
by
the
expresse
word
of
God
.
This
is
the
iudgement
The
first
opinion
that
tithes
are
almes
,
implyeth
also
those
seuerall
braunches
which
Bellarmine
for
inlarging
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
Now
the
ordinary
maintenance
of
the
Ministers
,
is
a
perpetuall
ordinance
,
which
either
hath
alwayes
beene
vsed
,
or
ought
alwayes
to
be
vsed
in
the
Church
.
But
certaine
it
is
,
that
this
competencie
is
not
the
ordinary
maintenance
.
Thirdly
,
this
competency
was
neuer
in
vse
from
the
beginning
of
the
world
to
this
day
.
Now
it
is
absurd
to
say
that
it
is
the
ordinary
maintenance
of
Ministers
,
which
neuer
was
in
vse
in
any
age
.
Fourthly
,
it
crosseth
the
vse
of
the
Apostles
times
,
because
this
competency
is
at
the
ciuill
maiestrates
appointment
,
that
vse
was
not
,
this
must
be
gotten
by
compulsion
,
that
was
not
,
this
is
not
almes
in
their
opinion
who
maintaine
it
,
that
was
.
Of
the
Apostolike
times
,
wee
shall
consider
in
due
place
:
now
we
reason
thus
.
That
which
neuer
was
in
vse
at
any
time
in
the
Church
,
ought
not
to
be
held
the
ordinary
maintenance
for
Ministers
:
but
this
competent
maintenance
was
neuer
in
vse
.
For
beefore
the
law
,
tithes
were
payed
by
the
patriarks
to
the
priests
:
vnder
the
law
tithes
were
appoynted
to
the
Leuites
and
Priests
:
in
the
Apostles
times
there
was
nothing
but
almes
,
as
will
appeare
when
we
speake
of
those
tymes
.
After
the
Apostles
times
,
tithes
were
in
vse
againe
,
this
competency
neuer
had
place
in
the
Church
.
And
euen
there
where
tithes
are
taken
away
from
the
Church
,
and
put
in
lay
mens
hands
:
yet
there
is
no
competencie
established
to
supply
that
which
was
taken
away
:
the
Scripture
commands
it
not
,
no
Prince
hath
at
any
time
ordained
it
,
it
neuer
was
,
and
therefore
as
we
may
well
thinke
neuer
will
be
.
Now
to
make
the
ministers
ordinary
maintenance
(
for
that
is
it
we
seeke
heere
)
to
stand
in
such
a
thing
as
neuer
was
,
and
by
likelihood
neuer
will
be
,
seemeth
much
vnreasonable
,
and
therfore
because
it
standeth
with
much
better
reason
to
denie
this
opinion
,
then
to
hold
all
the
absurdities
depending
vpon
it
,
following
the
best
reason
we
thinke
it
necessary
to
hold
,
that
the
ordinary
maintenance
of
Ministers
ought
not
to
stand
in
this
vncertaine
competency
,
which
is
onely
a
deuise
in
the
braines
of
some
men
,
and
neuer
came
into
practise
in
the
Church
.
Againe
the
Ministers
maintenance
must
be
and
is
generally
acknowledged
a
morall
constitution
,
but
that
this
competency
is
no
morall
constitution
it
appeareth
,
because
euery
morall
duty
ought
alwaies
to
be
done
,
and
sometimes
hath-ben
done
by
the
godly
;
but
this
competency
ought
not
alwaies
to
stand
,
and
will
hardly
be
proued
to
haue
ben
done
at
any
time
,
therefore
surely
not
morall
.
Now
in
tithes
it
is
far
otherwise
for
we
will
shew
,
they
ought
alwaies
to
bee
obserued
,
and
euen
then
when
they
were
not
payed
,
yet
stood
they
alwaies
the
ordinary
maintenance
.
Moreouer
to
maintaine
ministers
is
a
seruice
of
God
,
but
all
the
parts
of
the
seruice
of
God
are
deliuered
in
the
word
,
therefore
this
competency
must
either
be
shewed
out
of
Gods
word
,
or
taken
for
mans
ordinance
,
and
not
Gods
.
Further
in
this
competencie
many
,
I
take
it
,
are
deceiued
,
for
euery
man
will
take
vpon
him
to
define
a
competent
maintenance
:
and
that
they
call
competent
,
which
they
thinke
(
as
men
deuiding
their
almes
)
may
suffice
a
minister
.
But
the
scriptures
speaking
much
of
this
maintenance
,
doe
neuer
tearme
it
a
competency
,
or
that
which
sparing
men
in
their
sauing
humour
may
call
sufficient
;
but
an
honourable
maintenance
,
and
sometimes
double
honour
.
Now
there
would
be
found
a
great
difference
between
that
which
the
scriptures
cals
an
honorable
maintenance
,
and
that
which
men
distributing
their
almes
do
commonly
account
sufficient
.
Then
this
competency
must
either
be
ordained
of
God
,
or
by
man
:
if
by
God
,
it
is
tithes
,
for
no
other
maintenance
ordained
by
God
can
be
shewed
:
if
by
man
,
then
it
is
not
Gods
ordinance
;
now
we
seeke
Gods
ordinance
,
what
God
hath
ordeined
for
ministers
,
not
what
man
appointeth
.
If
any
man
say
,
it
may
be
mans
ordinance
,
and
yet
allowed
by
God
,
or
that
God
ordaineth
the
generall
,
but
man
appointeth
the
particular
manner
:
we
must
intreat
him
to
shew
vs
where
God
alloweth
man
either
to
make
such
an
ordinance
,
or
to
change
the
parliculer
which
God
hath
ordained
,
seeing
the
Lord
himselfe
hath
once
ordained
a
maintenance
,
that
must
stand
,
vntill
it
can
bee
shewed
that
God
hath
giuen
liberty
to
man
to
change
it
.
Heere
it
must
bee
well
remembred
,
that
to
maintaine
ministers
is
a
part
of
the
worship
of
God
,
for
thus
Iacob
did
worship
God
.
Gen.
28.
22.
And
therefore
if
the
maintenance
be
withdrawen
,
God
is
robbed
saith
Malach.
3.
8.
God
is
moccked
sath
Paul
Gal.
6.
6.
7.
for
of
Gods
ordinaunces
some
are
ciuill
and
doe
not
immediately
touch
the
worship
of
God
:
some
are
holy
,
which
touch
the
worship
of
God
immediately
:
when
we
speake
of
this
ordinance
,
it
may
not
be
consounded
with
ciuill
ordinances
,
for
Maiestrates
are
Gods
ordinance
,
but
ciuil
:
in
such
ciuill
ordinances
,
the
particular
manner
thereof
is
left
to
man
.
But
in
Gods
holy
ordinances
,
such
I
say
as
belong
to
the
immediate
worship
of
God
,
it
is
otherwise
:
for
in
such
things
mans
inuentions
haue
no
place
,
then
they
who
say
the
generall
ordinance
is
Gods
,
but
the
particular
manner
thereof
may
be
from
man
,
do
by
consequence
hold
the
Ministers
maintenance
to
be
a
ciuill
ordinance
,
not
holy
,
which
opinion
I
suppose
no
man
of
knowledge
and
learning
will
defend
.
But
if
we
once
leaue
this
opinion
,
and
confesse
directly
that
the
Ministers
maintenance
is
no
ciuill
ordinance
,
but
holy
,
belonging
to
the
morall
immediate
worship
of
God
,
then
must
it
needes
follow
that
man
hath
no
authoritie
therein
,
to
inuent
or
deuise
any
particular
manner
,
but
must
take
it
as
it
is
appointed
by
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
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
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
declared
,
yet
that
it
was
ordained
of
God
it
appeareth
aswell
by
that
which
we
haue
said
,
because
that
right
which
from
the
beginning
God
hath
in
euery
mans
goods
,
is
declared
by
the
practise
of
the
patriarks
to
be
tithes
:
as
also
because
Leuit.
27
it
is
said
,
tithes
are
the
Lords
,
holy
to
the
Lord
,
which
words
are
not
Leuiticall
or
ceremoniall
,
as
hereafter
shall
appeare
,
but
declare
,
that
tithes
were
the
Lords
alwaies
,
and
that
the
Lord
euen
from
the
beginning
hath
thus
declared
what
part
he
hath
in
euery
mans
goods
.
And
vpon
this
ground
and
reason
the
patriarks
payed
tithes
before
the
law
.
Thirdly
,
we
note
that
ordinarily
the
priesthood
(
before
the
law
giuen
)
was
annexed
to
the
eldest
of
the
house
,
the
first
borne
,
as
here
to
Melchisedech
,
which
is
thought
to
be
Sem
,
the
eldest
sonne
of
Noah
,
as
Lyra
noteth
,
and
the
yeares
agree
:
For
Sem
being
an
hundred
yeares
old
,
begat
.
Arphaxad
,
two
yeares
after
the
floud
,
and
liued
after
that
,
500.
yeares
.
Gen.
11.
11.
the
end
of
which
500.
yeares
,
falleth
in
the
50.
yeare
of
Isaac
his
age
,
ten
yeares
before
the
birth
of
Iacob
and
Esau.
The
Lord
afterward
tooke
the
Leuites
to
his
seruice
,
in
place
of
the
first
borne
.
Num.
8.
16.
this
ordinary
course
was
sometimes
broken
,
and
the
birth
right
went
from
the
eldest
to
another
,
yet
thus
much
was
alwayes
without
chaunge
,
the
Priesthood
did
follow
the
birth
right
,
and
tithes
the
priesthood
.
Fourthly
,
Leuy
payeth
tithes
in
Abraham
,
whereby
it
appeareth
that
to
pay
tithes
is
not
a
ceremonie
,
for
if
it
were
,
then
should
not
Leuy
be
noted
heete
for
paying
tithes
,
that
thing
cannot
be
a
Leuiticall
ceremonie
,
which
is
contrary
to
the
Leuiticall
ordinances
:
but
that
Leuy
should
pay
tithes
is
contrary
to
the
Leuitical
ordinances
,
which
ordaine
that
tithes
should
be
payed
to
Leuy
.
Now
because
it
is
against
the
ceremonies
of
the
law
,
that
Leuy
should
pay
tithes
,
therefore
when
Leuy
payeth
tithes
,
he
payeth
them
not
as
a
ceremony
of
the
law
.
Fiftly
,
we
obserue
that
before
the
law
tithes
were
paied
to
Christ
,
so
saith
the
Apostle
,
Heb.
7.
8.
Heere
men
that
die
receiue
tithes
,
but
there
he
receiueth
them
,
of
whom
it
is
witnessed
that
he
liued
.
In
which
words
the
Apostle
proueth
,
that
in
Melchisedech
Christ
receiued
tithes
.
Now
if
tithes
were
payed
to
Christ
before
the
Law
,
what
reason
may
be
brought
why
they
should
not
likewise
be
payed
vnto
Christ
after
the
law
ceased
.
Againe
,
tithes
payed
to
Melchisedech
are
here
brought
by
the
Apostle
,
as
a
reason
to
proue
the
perpetuitie
of
Christs
priesthood
,
therefore
tithes
must
be
payed
as
long
as
Christs
priesthood
standeth
.
Let
the
reason
of
the
Apostle
be
considered
:
men
that
die
receiue
tithes
heere
,
the
Leuiticall
tithes
are
but
for
a
time
,
but
when
Leuy
himselfe
payeth
tithes
(
as
before
the
law
it
was
,
and
after
the
law
it
must
be
)
then
are
they
giuen
to
him
of
whom
it
is
witnessed
that
he
liueth
.
Then
from
these
words
of
the
Apostle
there
is
a
difference
obserued
,
betweene
tithes
as
payed
to
Leuy
,
and
as
to
Christ
:
as
to
Leuy
they
stood
for
Leuy
his
time
,
but
tithes
die
not
with
Leuy
:
for
they
are
still
to
be
payed
to
him
of
whom
it
is
witnessed
that
he
liueth
.
Sixtly
,
hence
we
vnderstand
the
manner
and
reason
of
paying
tithes
to
Leuy
,
for
tithes
are
the
Lords
,
as
a
right
in
euery
mans
goods
from
the
beginning
to
the
end
of
the
world
.
All
tithes
are
the
Lords
,
holy
to
the
Lord
,
Leuit.
27.
30.
he
gaue
them
for
a
time
to
Leuy
,
so
long
as
Leuy
should
serue
the
tabernacle
and
no
longer
,
when
Leuy
ceased
to
minister
at
the
Alter
then
tithes
ceased
to
be
due
to
Leuy
,
but
tithes
then
ceased
not
to
be
the
Lords
,
for
as
they
were
his
before
the
law
,
so
they
stand
his
for
euer
;
because
the
Lord
can
neuer
loose
that
right
which
at
the
beginning
he
had
in
the
goods
of
euery
man
.
Seauenthly
,
whereas
a
question
may
be
moued
,
whether
the
tithes
which
Abraham
is
said
heere
to
pay
to
Melchisedech
,
were
tithes
of
the
spoiles
(
as
some
thinke
they
were
)
or
of
his
owne
goods
:
I
thinke
the
opinion
and
reason
of
the
most
iudicious
interpretor
is
heere
to
Aner
,
Escol
,
and
Mamre
their
portions
.
It
is
then
more
then
probable
that
he
payed
no
tithes
of
the
spoiles
,
seeing
he
would
not
account
any
part
thereof
his
owne
.
Eightly
,
if
Abraham
payed
tithes
to
Melchisedech
of
his
owne
goods
,
the
question
may
be
moued
,
whether
he
payed
them
yeerely
or
no
?
To
which
question
in
direct
words
we
haue
no
aunswere
,
and
therefore
wee
may
bee
content
to
be
ignorant
where
the
scripture
teacheth
not
,
but
in
probabilitie
it
seemeth
hee
payed
yeerely
,
because
they
were
yeerely
payed
vnder
the
law
;
for
tithes
were
not
first
instituted
to
be
payed
vnder
the
law
,
but
before
,
and
the
same
reason
was
before
,
which
was
vnder
the
law
,
for
the
priest
,
to
whom
(
as
Lyra
speaking
from
these
scriptures
,
saith
tithes
were
due
before
the
law
)
was
no
lesse
yeerely
to
bee
honoured
then
afterward
;
and
they
who
liued
before
the
law
had
as
much
reason
to
shew
their
gratitude
and
obedience
to
God
,
as
afterward
.
Neither
could
the
distance
of
place
be
any
hinderance
in
this
matter
,
for
Abraham
dwelt
at
Hebron
ouer
against
Sodom
,
and
Metchisedech
at
Salem
,
which
in
the
iudgement
of
Iosephus
is
Hierusalem
,
both
in
the
tribe
of
Iuda
,
not
far
a
sunder
.
Ninthly
,
whereas
against
this
,
it
may
be
obiected
out
of
the
words
of
the
Apostle
,
Heb.
7.
4.
that
Abraham
gaue
to
Melchisedech
tithes
of
the
spoyles
,
for
answere
we
must
call
that
translation
in
some
question
which
translateth
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
spoyles
,
some
learned
men
of
late
translate
it
so
,
but
it
was
not
so
vnderstood
in
former
times
.
Ierom.
translateth
it
;
de
praeciputs
,
If
it
might
be
plainely
shewed
,
that
the
word
in
the
vse
of
good
authors
is
taken
for
spoyles
,
then
we
might
make
lesse
question
heere
.
In
the
meane
time
we
may
doubt
.
It
is
commonly
taken
of
the
autors
of
the
Greeke
tongue
for
primitiae
,
and
sometimes
pro
primitijs
manubiarum
,
but
simply
for
spoyles
,
not
that
we
know
,
the
Seriac
translation
taking
the
word
in
his
vsuall
sense
,
hath
thus
:
To
whom
the
patriarch
Abraham
gaue
tithes
and
first
fruits
.
Isidorus
saith
,
Abraham
decimas
substantiae
post
benedictionem
dedit
Melchisedech
,
sicut
sucerdotibus
benedicentibus
sibi
populus
secundum
legem
decimas
dabat
.
Lyra
saith
,
Abraham
dedit
decimas
ipsi
.
Melchisedech
cui
debebantur
tanquam
sacerdoti
.
Tenthly
,
admit
(
last
of
all
)
that
Abraham
gaue
tithes
of
the
spoyles
(
which
thing
we
cannot
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
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
few
,
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
,
Franciscus
Iunius
departing
from
the
iudgement
of
other
learned
men
whom
otherwise
he
reuerenceth
,
was
moued
to
say
thus
much
,
decimae
iure
omni
post
hominum
memoriam
deo
fuerunt
sacrae
.
What
is
that
,
iure
omni
?
but
aswell
written
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
law
,
but
long
before
,
euen
from
the
beginning
.
What
then
was
instituted
in
the
law
?
all
that
which
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
seruice
at
the
Tabernacle
,
for
their
seruice
which
they
serue
,
&c.
By
this
we
may
distinguish
what
is
leuiticall
,
and
what
is
perpetuall
in
tithes
.
This
proposition
,
all
tithes
are
the
Lords
,
is
no
way
leuiticall
,
but
containeth
a
perpetuall
truth
.
That
which
is
leuiticall
in
this
point
,
standeth
in
two
things
,
which
we
may
call
the
leuiticall
assignation
,
and
the
leuiticall
institution
of
tithes
;
for
these
wordes
,
I
giue
all
tithes
to
the
Leuites
,
for
the
seruice
which
they
serue
at
the
Tabernacle
,
doe
containe
the
assignation
of
tithes
,
for
all
tithes
being
the
Lords
,
he
doth
heere
assigne
them
ouer
to
the
Leuites
for
a
time
,
during
the
seruice
of
the
Tabernacle
.
This
assignation
we
graunt
to
bee
leuiticall
,
and
to
indure
onely
so
long
as
Leuy
shall
serue
at
the
tabernacle
,
that
seruice
once
ended
,
tithes
shall
no
more
be
Leuy
his
right
,
but
tithes
shall
be
the
Lords
.
The
Leuiticall
institution
of
tithes
,
is
contayned
in
the
commandements
of
paying
tithes
to
Leuy
,
as
where
it
is
said
,
thou
shalt
bring
thy
tithes
to
the
Leuites
,
the
Leuite
thou
shalt
not
forsake
&c.
Where
we
see
the
commandement
for
paying
tithes
to
Leuy
presupposeth
the
Leuiticall
assignation
,
the
assignation
presupposeth
the
perpetuall
right
of
tithes
to
belong
to
the
Lord
.
If
these
grounds
were
graunted
,
the
question
were
at
an
end
,
but
because
there
will
be
question
made
of
these
groundes
,
let
them
be
examined
,
to
trye
whether
they
be
sufficient
to
hould
vp
that
building
which
is
to
be
laid
vpon
them
.
The
first
is
this
,
that
this
proposition
,
all
tithes
are
the
Lords
,
holy
to
the
Lord
:
is
not
Leuiticall
,
this
will
thus
appeare
.
If
all
tithes
were
the
Lords
,
holy
to
him
before
the
leuiticall
ministery
instituted
,
then
they
are
not
leuiticall
:
but
it
is
true
and
certaine
that
all
tithes
were
the
Lords
before
the
institution
of
the
Leuiticall
ministery
:
therefore
certainely
they
are
not
Leuiticall
,
the
proposition
is
euident
,
for
that
cannot
be
called
Leuiticall
,
which
was
before
the
institution
of
the
Leuiticall
order
,
the
assumption
is
no
lesse
true
,
because
tithes
were
the
Lords
,
holy
to
him
aswell
before
as
vnder
the
law
,
for
if
the
Lord
hath
alwayes
a
right
in
euery
mans
goods
,
if
this
right
was
declared
to
be
tithes
,
by
the
practise
of
the
patriarks
,
if
that
practise
doth
shew
that
euen
then
in
their
times
tithes
were
the
Lords
,
holy
to
him
:
it
must
needes
be
confessed
that
tithes
were
the
Lords
before
the
leuiticall
constitutions
.
Now
in
that
by
the
godly
patriarks
tithes
were
payed
to
the
Lord
,
is
confirmed
that
tithes
were
alwayes
the
Lords
,
and
by
that
which
heere
is
said
,
all
tithes
are
the
Lords
,
is
declared
by
what
warrant
the
patriarks
payed
tithes
,
this
is
sufficient
to
proue
,
that
tithes
were
not
instituted
first
in
the
law
.
It
may
be
obiected
,
that
albeit
tithes
be
not
leuiticall
,
as
being
in
vse
long
before
the
leuiticall
order
,
yet
they
may
be
ceremoniall
,
for
some
ceremonies
were
in
vse
before
the
leuiticall
ceremonies
,
to
this
reseruing
a
farther
aunswere
till
anon
,
first
,
we
say
that
tithes
are
ceremoniall
no
otherwise
,
then
as
they
are
leuiticall
,
and
this
I
suppose
,
that
men
which
attend
to
this
question
will
not
denie
mee
:
If
there
be
any
ceremonie
in
tithes
,
it
is
a
leuiticall
ceremony
.
This
thing
is
graunted
by
Abulensis
,
and
all
that
haue
carried
this
question
against
vs
,
and
the
common
voyce
against
vs
is
,
that
tithes
are
leuiticall
ceremonies
.
I
aske
no
more
,
the
rest
will
follow
,
for
if
tithes
,
haue
no
other
ceremonie
then
that
which
is
a
leuiticall
ceremonie
,
then
before
the
leuiticall
order
instituted
,
tithes
had
no
ceremonie
in
them
at
all
:
and
after
that
order
abrogated
,
tithes
remaining
still
,
haue
in
them
no
ceremonie
.
Now
thus
much
we
willingly
yeeld
,
that
all
ceremonies
may
not
properly
be
called
leuiticall
,
as
sacrificing
,
and
the
ceremonies
that
were
in
vse
before
the
leuiticall
order
,
but
those
ceremonies
which
were
ordained
with
and
for
the
leuiticall
order
(
as
many
were
)
may
properly
be
called
leuiticall
ceremonies
,
so
that
if
tithes
haue
no
ceremonie
but
leuiticall
,
surely
then
before
the
Leuites
,
they
had
no
ceremonie
at
all
,
to
cleare
these
things
the
better
,
leauing
no
doubt
vntouched
,
let
vs
compare
tithes
and
sacrifices
together
,
whereby
it
may
appeare
what
is
the
difference
betweene
tithes
,
and
such
ceremonies
as
were
in
vse
before
the
law
.
Sacrifices
were
in
vse
before
the
law
,
and
in
the
law
certaine
particular
ordinaunces
for
the
manner
of
sacrificing
are
commaunded
,
those
particular
ordinaunces
may
be
called
leuiticall
,
but
sacrificing
it selfe
is
not
:
so
tithes
were
in
vse
before
the
law
,
and
certaine
particular
ordinances
of
paying
tithes
to
the
Leuites
commanded
in
the
law
,
which
particular
constitutions
we
call
leuiticall
.
Thus
far
sacrifices
and
tithes
agree
:
heere
it
will
be
obiected
that
tithes
were
ceremonies
before
the
law
,
aswell
as
sacrifices
.
The
answere
is
in
marking
the
true
differences
betweene
sacrifices
and
tithes
,
which
differences
will
shew
the
one
to
be
a
ceremonie
,
the
other
none
.
The
differences
are
first
in
the
propertie
,
secondly
,
in
the
end
of
both
:
First
,
the
proprietie
of
sacrifices
and
tithes
considered
,
this
difference
appeareth
between
them
:
the
proprietie
and
right
in
tithes
,
is
alwayes
the
Lords
,
and
not
mans
.
Now
albeit
sacrifices
are
then
the
Lords
,
when
they
are
once
offered
to
him
,
yet
till
that
time
man
hath
the
proprietie
and
right
in
the
thing
which
he
sacrificeth
,
but
in
tithes
man
hath
no
right
,
because
all
tithes
are
the
lords
.
Then
in
sacrificing
man
sanctifieth
of
his
owne
to
God
,
which
before
offering
is
his
owne
,
and
if
he
should
not
offer
it
,
remaineth
his
owne
still
:
but
in
paying
tithes
man
giueth
nothing
of
his
owne
to
God
,
but
onely
rendreth
to
God
that
which
alwaies
was
his
right
:
in
not
sacrificing
godlynes
is
violated
,
in
not
paying
tithes
not
onely
godlines
is
broken
,
but
iustice
also
.
Now
a
ceremonie
standeth
not
in
paying
to
God
that
which
is
his
,
but
in
giuing
to
God
that
which
is
thine
owne
.
For
example
,
if
thou
giue
to
God
,
honour
,
praise
,
and
glorie
:
here
is
no
ceremonie
,
thou
giuest
to
him
that
which
was
euer
his
right
:
but
when
men
by
carnall
rites
did
make
signe
to
God
of
their
faith
and
obedience
,
then
they
gaue
him
that
which
was
their
owne
in
signification
of
other
things
.
The
second
difference
is
,
in
the
end
of
both
,
the
end
of
sacrificing
was
to
signifie
the
great
sacrifice
vpon
the
crosse
for
the
sins
of
the
world
,
&
therfore
it
was
a
ceremonie
,
because
it
was
a
carnall
type
of
that
holy
sacrifice
,
therefore
to
remaine
onely
vntill
that
sacrifice
be
exhibited
.
And
in
a
word
,
the
end
of
all
ceremonies
was
to
signifie
something
,
but
the
end
of
tithes
,
is
the
honour
or
maintenance
of
the
ministery
at
all
times
.
I
say
,
not
onely
the
honor
of
the
Leuites
,
but
of
the
ministers
of
Christ
alwayes
,
and
therefore
to
remaine
so
long
as
that
ministerie
shall
stand
.
And
that
this
was
the
true
end
thereof
,
it
appeareth
.
First
,
because
tithes
were
payed
to
the
priests
before
the
law
.
Secondly
,
because
they
were
particularly
assigned
to
the
priests
and
Leuites
vnder
the
law
.
Thirdly
,
because
by
the
fathers
succeeding
the
Apostles
,
(
as
heereafter
it
shall
bee
opened
)
they
were
challenged
to
the
Church
,
as
Gods
ordinance
,
for
the
maintenance
of
the
ministery
,
and
by
the
consent
of
all
Christians
yeelded
so
.
If
this
be
not
the
end
of
tithes
,
let
any
man
shew
and
proue
to
vs
another
end
of
them
:
if
this
be
their
end
,
euen
an
honourable
maintenance
of
the
ministery
,
then
certainely
tithes
are
no
ceremonies
,
because
the
end
of
a
ceremonie
is
onely
to
signifie
something
,
and
it
hath
no
other
end
or
vse
,
whereby
as
we
haue
the
apparant
differences
betweene
tithes
and
sacrifices
,
shewing
plainly
the
one
to
be
ceremoniall
,
the
other
not
:
so
we
haue
this
truth
no
lesse
cleared
,
that
this
proposition
,
all
tithes
are
the
Lords
,
containeth
no
leuiticall
ceremonie
,
but
a
perpetuall
truth
.
For
the
farther
manifestation
of
this
point
,
it
must
be
considered
,
that
vpon
this
ground
(
al
tithes
are
the
Lords
)
the
leuiticall
assignation
resteth
,
for
whereas
first
the
Lord
maketh
it
manifest
,
that
all
tithes
are
his
,
and
afterward
assigneth
them
to
Leuy
,
it
is
declared
that
heerein
he
doth
wrong
no
man
,
for
he
giueth
that
to
Leuy
,
which
by
peculiar
right
and
proprietie
is
his
owne
,
no
man
hath
right
or
proprietie
in
the
tithes
of
his
owne
goods
,
but
as
euery
man
hath
a
proprietie
in
the
rest
of
his
goods
,
so
hath
the
Lord
in
tithes
.
Then
this
right
which
the
Lord
hath
in
tithes
,
none
can
challenge
from
him
,
for
otherwise
some
man
might
thus
surmise
,
I
am
wronged
if
my
goods
be
taken
from
me
and
giuen
to
Leuy
.
In
these
words
there
is
a
secret
answere
to
all
such
surmises
,
tithes
are
none
of
thy
goods
,
thou
hast
no
right
in
them
at
all
,
all
tithes
are
the
Lords
.
And
that
this
is
the
true
meaning
of
these
words
,
it
may
appeare
,
if
we
compare
them
with
other
places
which
sound
like
this
,
but
cannot
thus
be
expounded
.
It
is
said
that
,
all
the
beasts
of
the
forrest
are
the
Lords
,
and
the
cattell
vpon
a
thousand
hils
.
Psal
,
50.
the
earth
is
the
Lords
and
all
that
therein
is
.
Psal.
24.
but
these
things
are
said
to
be
the
Lords
in
another
sense
,
then
tithes
are
.
I
remember
well
that
sentence
and
rule
of
Hillary
,
that
he
who
readeth
scriptures
as
he
ought
,
must
not
bring
a
sense
to
the
words
,
but
fet
the
sense
from
the
words
,
and
not
compell
the
Scripture
to
speake
as
hee
in
preiudice
conceaueth
.
If
I
breake
this
rule
,
it
is
of
ignorance
,
not
of
wilfulnesse
,
&
I
will
willingly
take
a
rebuke
,
if
I
faile
herein
,
especially
from
such
as
will
both
reproue
and
teach
mee
.
Things
are
said
to
be
the
Lords
in
diuerse
senses
,
when
the
earth
is
sayd
to
be
the
Lords
,
and
such
like
:
we
vnderstand
that
these
things
are
the
Lords
,
in
two
respects
.
First
,
in
respect
of
a
duetie
all
creatures
are
the
Lords
,
because
he
is
their
creator
,
for
euery
thing
created
oweth
a
duetie
to
the
creator
,
as
to
the
great
Lord
to
whom
all
things
owe
their
homage
,
albeit
euill
and
corrupt
men
vnderstand
not
this
,
and
therefore
are
farre
from
this
dutifull
obedience
:
yet
they
should
in
regard
of
this
dutie
,
set
the
seruice
of
God
before
all
things
whatsoeuer
,
because
he
is
creatour
of
all
,
this
reason
the
Prophet
toucheth
where
he
saith
,
the
earth
is
the
Lords
:
for
(
saith
hee
)
he
hath
founded
the
world
&c.
Secondly
,
all
creatures
are
said
to
be
the
Lords
also
,
in
respect
of
that
power
whereby
he
ruleth
all
,
euill
and
corrupt
men
,
though
not
vnderstanding
the
same
,
and
being
far
from
yeelding
their
dutifull
obedience
to
the
Lord
,
are
yet
subiect
vnto
this
his
power
,
for
he
directeth
euery
thing
to
his
proper
end
,
in
this
respect
the
Prophet
saith
:
Hee
doth
whatsoeuer
pleaseth
him
in
heauen
and
in
earth
.
Psal.
135.
And
in
these
respects
wee
vnderstand
those
Scriptures
that
say
,
the
earth
and
the
creatures
are
the
Lords
,
aswell
because
all
things
created
owe
a
duety
to
him
,
and
as
it
were
their
homage
,
as
also
because
all
things
created
,
are
gouerned
by
his
power
and
prouidence
.
But
when
tithes
are
said
to
be
the
Lords
,
this
is
in
respect
of
a
proprietie
and
immediate
right
,
that
he
hath
in
tithes
,
for
otherwise
why
should
the
Lord
say
that
tithes
are
his
,
more
then
the
other
9.
parts
?
for
in
those
former
respects
the
9.
parts
are
his
,
euen
as
the
earth
is
his
,
&c.
this
then
declareth
an
immediate
right
and
proprietie
that
the
Lord
hath
in
tithes
,
distinct
from
the
respects
of
duetie
,
power
and
prouidence
,
in
which
respects
all
the
rest
is
his
.
And
that
the
words
force
vs
,
and
not
we
them
to
this
sense
:
it
may
farther
appeare
by
the
words
following
,
which
doe
expound
the
place
,
and
puts
it
out
of
doubtfulnesse
.
Al
tithes
are
the
Lords
holy
to
the
Lord
:
These
words
(
holy
to
the
Lord
)
doe
interpret
the
former
,
and
shew
in
what
sense
tithes
are
the
Lords
,
not
onely
in
respect
of
a
generall
duety
,
or
in
respect
of
his
power
,
but
euen
in
this
sense
,
because
the
proprietie
and
immediate
right
to
tithes
is
not
in
man
,
but
in
God
onely
,
for
that
which
is
holy
to
the
Lord
,
is
seperate
from
man
,
and
mans
vse
;
in
such
things
man
hath
no
right
at
all
,
therefore
if
man
keepe
tithes
from
the
Lord
,
it
must
be
confessed
that
this
is
vsurpation
and
sacriledge
.
Moreouer
,
we
note
the
manner
of
these
words
.
It
is
not
sayd
thou
shalt
pay
all
tithes
to
the
Lord
,
for
such
a
precept
might
argue
an
institution
of
tithes
:
but
it
is
say'd
,
all
tithes
are
the
Lords
,
which
words
doe
not
expresse
any
new
institution
,
but
declare
an
auncient
right
which
was
begun
long
before
the
law
.
It
is
farther
to
be
considered
,
that
the
law
obserueth
a
distinction
in
holy
things
,
by
which
distinction
we
may
learne
how
tithes
differ
from
other
things
,
which
by
the
leuiticall
law
were
called
holy
,
for
things
holy
,
or
seperate
from
mans
vse
,
are
either
such
as
the
Lord
seperateth
to
himselfe
,
wherein
man
hath
no
right
:
or
such
things
as
man
seperateth
to
the
Lord
:
now
tithes
are
made
holy
and
seperate
from
mans
vse
,
not
by
man
,
but
by
the
Lord
himselfe
.
For
it
is
sayd
:
Leuit.
27.
28.
Nothing
separate
from
common
vse
,
which
a
man
separateth
to
the
Lord
,
of
all
that
he
hath
,
may
bee
sould
,
nor
redeemed
,
but
tithes
may
be
redeemed
Leuit.
27.
31.
by
adding
a
fift
part
.
Therefore
tithes
are
such
things
,
as
man
hath
no
power
to
seperate
from
common
vse
,
because
they
stand
separate
from
common
vse
by
the
Lord
,
which
sheweth
euidently
that
man
hath
no
right
or
proprietie
in
his
owne
tithes
,
as
he
hath
in
the
things
which
he
may
separate
from
common
vse
to
the
Lord
.
Then
the
generall
ordinaunce
of
tithes
was
not
instituted
in
the
law
,
but
long
before
,
as
appeareth
both
by
the
practise
of
the
godly
in
former
times
,
and
by
these
wordes
declaring
the
ground
of
that
practise
,
which
ground
is
the
immediate
right
which
the
Lord
hath
alwaies
in
tithes
,
for
if
the
former
practise
,
and
that
which
we
haue
obserued
of
these
words
,
All
tithes
are
the
Lords
,
be
compared
together
,
it
is
euident
that
the
Lord
did
not
then
begin
to
haue
a
right
in
tithes
when
the
law
was
giuen
.
This
right
is
not
instituted
in
the
law
,
but
onely
declared
,
whervpon
it
followeth
that
this
is
right
perpetuall
,
for
we
call
that
perpetuall
whereof
no
beginning
can
be
shewed
,
but
the
vse
therof
proued
from
the
beginning
.
Therefore
wee
conclude
that
this
proposition
,
All
tithes
are
the
Lords
,
holy
to
the
Lord
,
containeth
a
perpetuall
truth
,
and
no
leuiticall
ceremonie
.
To
confesse
the
truth
,
I
finde
my selfe
in
writing
this
which
I
know
many
are
ready
to
gainesay
,
so
affected
as
they
who
fortifie
an
hould
against
the
enimies
,
where
the
wall
is
weakest
or
lowest
there
the
greatest
force
of
the
enimies
is
set
to
make
a
breach
,
so
I
finde
that
we
are
now
as
it
were
in
that
breach
,
and
if
I
can
fortifie
this
one
peece
so
as
to
put
the
aduersaries
out
of
hope
of
entrance
heere
,
I
shall
be
at
more
ease
for
the
rest
:
for
euery
man
will
graunt
mee
that
tithes
were
due
before
the
law
,
and
vnder
the
law
assigned
to
the
Leuites
,
but
how
the
perpetuall
right
is
proued
,
or
how
this
right
may
appeare
assumed
againe
after
the
abrogation
of
the
law
,
this
is
that
wherat
most
sticke
,
this
is
that
which
I
must
fortifie
.
To
that
therefore
which
already
wee
haue
spoken
add
that
which
the
Apostle
saith
in
the
Epistle
to
the
Hebrewes
,
for
hee
hath
so
fortified
the
matter
that
I
know
not
what
may
bee
brought
against
him
,
in
those
words
,
Heb.
7.
8.
Heere
men
that
die
receiue
tithes
,
but
there
hee
receiueth
them
,
of
whom
it
is
witnessed
that
hee
liueth
:
who
is
hee
of
whom
it
is
witnessed
that
hee
liueth
.
?
It
is
spoken
there
of
Melchisedech
,
but
it
is
verified
in
Christ
,
Melchisedech
heere
is
brought
in
to
no
other
end
,
but
as
a
type
of
Christ
,
to
shew
how
these
things
spoken
of
the
tipe
,
are
most
true
in
the
body
Christ
Iesus
:
for
there
the
Apostle
proueth
the
greatnesse
of
Christs
priesthood
and
the
perpetuity
of
the
same
,
so
that
these
things
heere
spoken
of
the
tipe
,
are
declared
to
be
verified
especially
&
principally
in
Christ
:
then
albeit
Melchisedech
be
in
some
sort
witnessed
to
liue
,
because
ther
is
silence
of
his
death
,
yet
this
is
especially
&
principally
true
in
Christ
:
then
when
the
Apostle
faith
,
that
heere
he
receiueth
tithes
who
is
witnessed
to
liue
,
his
meaning
is
that
tithes
are
payed
in
the
priesthood
of
Christ
,
not
onely
in
the
leuiticall
priesthood
.
Heere
men
that
die
receine
tithes
,
but
ther
he
receiueth
them
of
whom
it
is
witnessed
that
he
liueth
,
where
we
haue
an
euident
distinction
betwene
the
leuiticall
assignation
,
and
the
perpetuall
right
of
tithes
.
Heere
men
that
die
receiue
tithes
,
there
is
the
leuiticall
assignation
,
which
was
to
haue
an
end
:
but
there
hee
receiueth
them
,
of
whom
it
is
witnessed
that
he
liueth
,
in
these
words
the
perpetuall
right
First
,
whether
tithes
be
ceremoniall
.
Secondly
,
whether
they
be
iudiciall
.
To
know
whether
tithes
be
ceremoniall
It
may
be
obiected
,
that
albeit
all
these
things
be
expressed
in
the
Apostle
his
words
,
yet
his
meaning
may
be
not
to
define
a
ceremony
,
but
to
discribe
diuerse
kinds
of
ceremonies
,
as
namely
,
that
of
ceremonies
some
are
carnall
types
,
other
for
the
seruice
of
the
tabernacle
,
others
to
indure
vntill
the
time
of
reformation
,
&c.
wee
answere
for
our
purpose
all
is
one
,
whether
it
be
graunted
that
this
is
a
definition
,
or
a
diuision
of
ceremonies
:
if
it
be
a
definition
,
tithes
must
agree
to
this
definition
,
or
else
it
can
not
be
ceremoniall
:
if
it
be
a
diuision
of
ceremonies
,
then
tithes
must
agree
to
some
part
of
it
,
otherwise
they
can
be
no
ceremonies
,
but
we
say
that
tithes
neither
agree
to
the
whole
,
nor
to
any
part
thereof
,
for
they
are
neither
carnall
,
nor
types
,
nor
carnall
types
of
holy
things
,
nor
for
the
seruice
of
the
tabernacle
,
nor
inioyned
to
indure
onely
vntill
the
time
of
reformation
,
if
no
part
heereof
agree
with
tithes
,
how
is
it
possible
this
thing
should
bee
a
ceremonie
,
let
vs
then
examine
the
parcels
.
First
,
tithes
are
not
carnall
,
for
carnall
in
the
Apostle
his
sence
,
is
not
taken
for
euery
worldly
thing
,
but
for
such
a
worldly
and
rude
element
,
or
as
the
Apostle
calleth
it
,
Gal.
4.
9.
such
an
impotent
and
beggerly
rudiment
as
serued
for
the
institution
of
the
rude
and
ignoraunt
people
of
the
Iewes
,
hauing
no
such
vse
among
Christians
:
but
tithes
serued
not
for
institution
of
the
Iewes
,
for
they
did
teach
nothing
,
and
yet
they
haue
among
Christians
the
same
vse
,
which
then
they
had
:
for
they
serued
then
,
as
now
also
they
doe
,
for
honour
and
maintenance
of
them
who
teach
the
people
.
Is
it
possible
that
this
thing
should
be
a
Leuiticall
ceremonie
,
which
hath
the
same
vse
among
Christians
,
which
it
had
in
Israell
?
farther
,
tithes
are
no
types
,
for
a
type
was
instituted
for
no
other
vse
,
but
to
signifie
an
holy
thing
in
Christ
or
his
kingdome
,
but
tithes
were
not
instituted
for
this
vse
to
signifie
any
thing
in
Christ
or
his
kingdome
,
therefore
no
types
,
this
appeareth
plainely
,
because
tithes
are
after
Christ
,
as
they
were
before
,
the
honourable
maintenance
of
the
ministerie
alwaies
,
therefore
they
signified
nomore
then
now
they
doe
,
but
as
they
were
,
so
they
stand
still
,
or
if
any
thinke
that
tithes
were
instituted
onely
to
signifie
some
thing
,
let
that
thing
once
be
shewed
.
Now
if
they
be
neither
carnall
,
nor
types
,
how
can
they
be
carnall
types
,
and
by
consequence
they
are
not
carnall
types
of
holy
things
,
but
they
are
those
holy
things
themselues
,
for
to
pay
tithes
sincerely
to
the
ministers
of
Christ
,
is
an
holy
thing
,
and
this
is
enough
to
proue
it
no
ceremonie
,
for
no
ceremonie
is
of
it selfe
an
holy
thing
,
but
that
this
is
,
it
is
apparant
,
because
now
in
the
time
of
the
gospell
the
same
vse
of
this
thing
is
retained
,
when
all
ceremonies
are
abrogated
,
neither
were
tithes
instituted
for
the
seruice
of
the
tabernacle
.
I
speake
heere
of
the
ordinance
of
tithes
,
not
of
the
Leuiticall
assignation
:
which
assignation
I
graunt
was
instituted
for
the
seruice
of
the
tabernacle
,
but
the
question
of
tithes
in
generall
,
is
much
differing
from
this
assignation
,
for
tithes
were
before
the
law
,
this
assignation
was
not
,
tithes
are
in
vse
after
the
law
ended
,
this
is
not
,
therefore
there
is
as
much
difference
betweene
tithes
in
generall
and
this
assignation
,
as
betweene
things
perpetuall
and
temporary
.
Last
of
all
,
it
is
euident
,
that
tithes
were
not
inioyned
vntill
the
time
of
reformation
,
for
they
are
in
vse
after
that
time
,
therefore
we
reason
thus
,
no
Leuiticall
ceremonie
may
be
allowed
to
remain
in
the
Church
any
longer
then
vntill
the
time
of
reformation
,
but
tithes
are
,
and
haue
beene
by
all
godly
allowed
to
remaine
in
the
Church
after
the
time
of
reformation
:
therefore
tithes
are
no
such
ceremonies
,
the
assumption
is
in
the
manifest
knowledge
and
consciences
of
all
men
:
the
proposition
is
proued
out
of
the
words
of
the
Apostle
,
where
he
describeth
ceremonies
in
these
words
,
Heb.
9.
10.
carnall
rites
which
were
inioyned
vntill
the
time
of
reformation
.
If
those
carnall
rites
were
inioyned
vntill
the
time
of
reformation
,
then
manifestly
it
followeth
that
these
carnall
rites
were
to
be
abolished
at
the
time
of
reformation
,
and
are
not
to
be
retained
in
the
Church
after
that
time
:
heere
then
of
two
things
we
must
choose
one
,
eyther
to
say
,
tithes
are
no
ceremonie
,
or
to
charge
the
Church
of
Christians
of
impietie
in
the
highest
degree
,
for
appointing
tithes
for
the
maintenance
of
ministers
,
and
so
retaining
a
ceremonie
in
the
Church
after
the
time
of
reformation
,
against
the
expresse
doctrine
of
the
Apostle
.
But
now
consider
what
answere
is
thought
by
some
to
be
sufficient
.
This
for
sooth
,
that
tithes
are
vsed
now
in
the
time
of
the
gospell
,
not
as
a
ceremonie
,
but
as
another
thing
,
they
were
vnder
the
law
(
say
they
)
ceremonies
,
but
now
they
cease
to
be
,
and
are
retained
as
some
other
thing
:
let
them
be
as
what
you
list
,
this
is
no
sufficient
answere
to
that
which
I
haue
said
,
and
to
shew
the
weakenes
heereof
(
because
in
this
aunswere
is
placed
all
the
hope
of
them
who
hold
tithes
ceremonies
)
let
vs
take
a
little
paines
with
it
,
for
the
inualiditie
of
this
poore
shift
being
manifested
,
we
may
go
with
more
ease
through
the
rest
.
If
this
were
a
sufficient
answere
to
say
,
we
vnderstand
tithes
now
not
as
a
ceremonie
,
then
surely
nothing
in
any
disputation
can
be
proued
,
and
because
this
matter
reacheth
farther
then
at
the
first
show
it
seemeth
,
it
shall
not
be
vnprofitable
by
the
way
of
a
short
digression
,
to
speake
in
generall
of
insufficient
answearing
,
that
is
,
of
vnexact
distinguishing
,
where
the
truth
is
onely
sought
out
,
without
heate
or
contention
,
there
the
distinction
of
the
answere
will
shew
it selfe
so
quick
,
as
that
it
doth
not
onely
answere
the
sophisme
,
but
also
carrieth
force
and
power
in
it selfe
to
ouerthrow
the
contrary
falshood
,
but
where
the
distinction
hath
not
this
life
in
it
,
there
it
discrieth
it selfe
to
bee
,
not
as
armour
of
defence
as
it
should
be
,
but
onely
as
that
sodaine
helpe
,
which
the
man
in
daunger
of
drowning
catcheth
after
:
for
example
,
that
answere
which
serueth
for
the
common
hackney
in
schooles
:
verum
est
materialiter
,
non
formaliter
:
let
it
be
allowed
for
a
sufficient
answere
,
and
what
can
be
concluded
?
That
the
absurditie
heereof
may
more
plainly
appeare
,
I
will
recite
certaine
examples
.
Thomas
Aquinas
concludeth
,
that
concupisence
which
Dominicus
▪
Soto
not
consenting
to
Thomas
,
and
yet
being
vnwilling
to
stand
against
him
in
contradiction
,
thinketh
this
a
sufficient
answere
:
that
which
Thomas
saith
is
true
,
ratione
formae
,
sed
non
natione
materiae
,
nam
ratione
materiae
(
faith
Soto
)
concupisentia
illa
est
naturalis
.
Martin
Luther
made
this
obiection
against
Indulgences
,
Indulgences
are
saide
to
remit
penaunces
,
but
penaunces
are
good
works
,
such
as
Fasting
,
Almes
,
Prayer
and
the
like
:
therefore
Indulgences
are
not
good
but
pernicious
,
seeing
they
hinder
men
from
good
workes
.
Bellarmin
thinketh
it
sufficient
to
answere
thus
;
Indulgences
remit
penaunces
not
as
they
non
quatenus
sunt
bona
opera
,
but
as
another
thing
,
as
if
hee
should
say
,
verum
est
materialiter
,
non
formaliter
.
Iust
as
these
men
distinguish
in
a
ceremonie
,
tithes
are
now
retained
not
as
a
ceremonie
,
but
as
another
thing
.
If
this
kinde
of
answere
runne
for
currant
,
who
seeth
not
that
this
blinde
distinction
is
at
hand
ready
against
any
truth
though
neuer
so
well
concluded
?
for
when
a
man
hath
concluded
,
that
to
drinke
till
a
man
be
drunck
is
a
sin
,
some
will
finde
out
this
distinction
,
it
is
a
sinne
materialiter
,
sed
non
formaliter
:
for
I
vse
,
saith
he
,
non
quatenus
,
not
as
drunkennesse
,
but
as
another
thing
.
And
why
may
not
another
frame
the
same
distinction
for
whoredome
,
especially
if
hee
may
alleadge
the
aduise
of
some
Phisitions
which
hould
such
phisicke
needefull
for
his
body
.
And
so
in
other
things
,
I
would
know
how
a
man
can
conclude
against
the
Ebionites
,
if
this
kinde
of
aunswering
bee
receiued
for
good
?
they
receiue
circumcision
with
the
Gospell
:
how
will
you
disproue
them
?
if
you
vrge
those
words
of
the
Apostle
,
If
you
be
circumcised
Christ
profiteth
you
nothing
:
may
not
they
aunswere
verum
est
formaliter
,
non
materialiter
.
Wee
retaine
circumcision
not
formally
,
non
quatenus
,
not
as
a
sacrament
,
but
as
another
thing
.
If
this
were
nothing
else
but
to
mocke
the
Apostles
diuinitie
,
why
should
any
bee
so
much
ouerseene
,
as
to
thinke
this
distinction
may
stand
against
vs
,
which
in
the
like
case
can
not
stand
against
the
Apostle
?
Therefore
it
is
not
enough
to
bring
a
distinction
,
but
the
parts
thereof
should
bee
confirmed
out
of
the
principles
of
that
profession
,
wherein
the
disputation
is
,
if
the
disputation
be
in
Logicke
or
Philosophie
,
then
the
parts
of
the
distinction
to
bee
confirmed
out
of
Logicke
or
philosophie
,
if
in
diuinitie
,
then
out
of
the
scriptures
.
This
sincerely
practized
would
cut
the
sinewes
of
many
friuelous
contentions
which
are
so
often
moued
and
repeated
againe
without
end
.
Thus
much
concerning
the
idle
and
endlesse
humour
of
writing
,
which
proceedeth
for
the
most
part
from
insincere
answering
.
Now
to
returne
to
the
former
answere
of
those
,
who
thinke
they
haue
said
enough
,
when
they
say
that
tithes
are
not
now
established
in
the
Church
as
a
ceremonie
,
but
as
another
thing
,
it
is
as
if
they
should
say
verum
est
materialiter
,
non
formaliter
.
For
the
frame
of
a
ceremonie
remaineth
not
,
yet
the
matter
,
say
they
,
remaineth
.
Which
answere
as
in
some
place
may
stand
,
so
heere
it
cannot
,
vnlesse
the
parts
of
this
distinction
be
proued
by
scripture
,
which
no
man
hath
at
any
time
as
yet
proued
.
For
it
should
be
proued
by
scripture
that
tithes
were
a
leuiticall
ceremonie
,
and
that
the
thing
which
once
was
a
ceremonie
,
may
be
retained
in
the
Church
of
Christ
,
but
wee
haue
shewed
the
contradictary
to
both
,
that
tithes
were
neuer
a
ceremonie
,
by
the
discription
of
a
ceremonie
,
and
that
the
thing
which
was
a
ceremonie
may
not
be
retained
in
the
Church
of
Christians
,
because
it
was
inioyned
onely
vntill
the
time
of
reformation
:
and
therefore
we
conclude
,
this
answere
is
euery
way
weake
,
and
no
sufficient
exception
against
our
cause
.
But
for
the
latter
part
thereof
,
it
may
be
thus
obiected
,
some
things
were
ceremonies
which
yet
are
,
or
may
bee
lawfully
retained
among
Christians
,
as
not
to
sow
a
vineyard
with
diuerse
kindes
of
seedes
;
not
to
plow
with
an
Oxe
and
an
Asse
;
not
to
weare
a
garment
of
diuers
sorts
,
as
wollen
and
linnen
together
,
Deut.
22.
I
answere
these
scriptures
Deut.
22.
doe
not
speake
of
ceremonies
,
but
of
iudicialls
.
Of
this
answere
,
there
are
these
reasons
.
First
,
throughout
that
Chapter
he
speaketh
of
things
iudiciall
,
and
in
the
Chapter
next
before
,
as
also
in
that
which
next
followeth
,
hee
declareth
precepts
iudiciall
of
all
sorts
,
concerning
matters
of
state
when
they
goe
to
warre
,
touching
publike
affaires
,
touching
priuate
,
touching
husbandry
,
touching
a
mans
comely
carrying
of
himselfe
abroad
and
at
home
:
For
iudicialls
reach
not
onely
to
the
great
affaires
of
a
state
,
but
euen
to
a
comelynesse
in
husbandry
and
apparell
,
of
which
ciuill
comlinesse
these
precepts
are
to
be
vnderstood
,
and
in
a
ciuill
state
well
and
exactly
gouerned
,
to
bee
receiued
,
for
ciuill
comelinesse
,
and
an
exact
order
is
to
be
setled
in
euery
part
of
the
state
.
Another
reason
that
these
precepts
are
to
be
vnderstoode
of
iudicialls
,
not
of
ceremonies
is
,
because
these
things
cannot
agree
to
the
discription
of
a
ceremony
,
out
of
the
Apostles
wordes
,
for
neither
were
these
carnall
tipes
of
holy
things
,
neither
were
they
instituted
for
the
seruice
of
the
Tabernacle
.
Againe
it
can
not
bee
saide
that
a
ceremonie
is
negatiue
,
as
a
precept
may
bee
,
for
they
are
not
set
downe
in
negatiues
,
this
thou
shalt
not
doe
,
but
in
affirmatiues
in
doing
or
vsing
,
for
a
ceremonie
is
positiuely
to
represent
an
holy
thing
,
for
which
cause
the
Apostle
calleth
them
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Thou
shalt
not
mussell
the
mouth
of
the
Oxe
that
treadeth
out
thy
corne
.
The
Apostle
1.
Cor.
9.
9.
draweth
a
signification
,
and
thereby
a
strong
reason
for
maintenance
of
ministers
,
and
yet
I
suppose
,
no
man
will
hould
that
precept
to
bee
ceremoniall
,
for
it
is
iudiciall
altogether
,
because
it
is
of
things
in
common
vse
,
therefore
certainely
iudiciall
:
euen
so
are
these
precepts
Deut.
22.
to
bee
vnderstood
.
Wherefore
the
contrary
apparaunces
being
remoued
,
the
truth
of
this
conclusion
will
better
appeare
,
tithes
are
no
ceremonies
.
Now
as
it
is
an
easie
matter
for
any
without
much
learning
to
say
tithes
were
ceremonies
,
and
to
rest
there
without
reason
,
without
discussing
the
manner
and
cause
thereof
,
so
if
any
would
enter
iudiciously
into
the
carefull
and
conscionable
search
heereof
,
and
open
vnto
vs
the
signification
of
this
ceremonie
,
and
shew
vs
the
proper
end
and
vse
thereof
,
and
proue
with
one
sound
reason
,
that
tithes
were
instituted
to
signifie
something
onely
for
a
time
as
all
ceremonies
were
:
I
should
for
my
part
thinke
my
selse
much
beholding
to
him
;
otherwise
if
thou
shalt
tell
me
a
thousand
times
it
is
a
ceremonie
,
though
this
were
true
that
thou
saist
,
yet
because
thou
knowest
not
the
reason
and
ground
thereof
,
to
thee
it
is
as
an
vntruth
,
he
who
holdeth
this
a
ceremonie
,
ought
to
bring
an
approued
reason
from
the
word
,
and
declare
the
true
end
and
vse
of
the
ceremonie
,
which
will
open
the
signification
thereof
:
till
that
be
done
,
lie
that
saith
it
is
a
ceremonie
speaketh
without
vnderstanding
.
We
shall
haue
lesse
trouble
to
disproue
the
other
opinion
,
Nothing
separate
from
common
vse
,
that
a
man
doth
separate
to
the
Lord
,
of
all
that
he
hath
,
may
be
sold
nor
redeemed
,
and
in
the
verse
following
,
things
separate
from
common
vse
are
expounded
,
separate
from
man
.
Thus
are
all
holy
things
separate
from
common
vse
or
from
man
,
but
all
iudicials
are
of
things
in
common
vse
,
not
separate
from
man
,
therefore
no
iudicials
are
holy
things
,
no
holy
things
iudicials
.
By
this
which
we
haue
said
,
the
question
I
hope
is
cleared
which
was
mooued
in
the
beginning
of
this
chapter
,
how
tithes
stood
vnder
the
law
,
It
appeareth
that
then
they
were
not
as
ceremonies
,
nor
iudicials
,
but
a
perpetuall
ordinance
and
part
of
the
morall
truth
.
Before
wee
passe
from
this
place
,
I
would
adde
a
word
of
the
antiquitie
of
these
two
opinions
which
I
haue
last
refuted
.
The
iudgements
of
former
ages
is
a
great
presumption
,
and
men
of
iudgement
will
very
hardly
depart
from
an
ancient
opinion
without
great
reasons
.
Now
as
the
opinion
which
I
seeke
to
confirme
is
ancient
,
and
hath
beene
lield
by
the
best
learned
in
the
Church
from
the
beginning
till
these
late
yeeres
:
so
those
other
two
opinions
last
spoken
of
,
are
both
new
,
though
the
one
somewhat
elder
then
the
other
.
That
tithes
are
ceremonies
,
is
an
opinion
deuised
about
an
hundred
yeeres
since
,
not
aboue
:
the
other
,
that
tithes
are
iudicials
is
auncienter
,
for
it
was
first
deuised
by
Alexander
de
Hales
an
English
man
the
father
of
schole-diuinitie
,
the
first
that
wrote
vpon
Iohn
Bale
.
The
same
opinion
is
maintained
by
Thomas
Aquinas
scholler
to
Hales
.
These
their
chieftains
the
schole-men
follow
,
and
hence
it
is
now
a
receiued
CHAP.
IIII.
How
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
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
with
the
vse
of
these
times
whereof
wee
speake
.
This
the
Waldenses
and
after
them
Iohn
Wiclife
did
foresee
,
and
well
vnderstood
,
that
if
the
practise
of
the
Apostles
be
vrged
in
this
point
,
then
assuredly
nothing
can
be
clamed
but
almes
.
And
therefore
they
vrging
that
vse
did
truely
thereupon
conclude
that
the
ministers
maintenance
must
be
almes
though
they
vrged
those
times
without
reason
,
yet
that
being
once
graunted
the
other
must
follow
.
Now
let
vs
consider
the
reasons
which
the
Apostles
vse
in
mouing
these
contributions
,
these
reasons
if
a
man
consider
them
aright
,
doe
reach
farther
then
they
are
applyed
;
and
indeed
doe
conclude
another
thing
,
for
seeing
the
contributions
then
practised
were
almes
,
and
the
reasons
confirme
a
due
maintenance
,
surely
they
confirme
another
thing
then
was
practised
at
that
time
.
For
example
the
reasons
whereof
wee
haue
spoken
,
1.
Cor.
9.
Who
goeth
to
warfare
at
any
time
of
his
owne
cost
?
who
planteth
a
vineyard
and
eateth
not
of
the
fruit
thereof
?
or
who
feedeth
a
flocke
and
eateth
not
of
the
milke
?
These
reasons
doe
not
so
much
proue
that
which
then
was
in
vse
,
as
another
thing
:
what
that
other
thing
is
,
that
is
heere
in
question
?
wee
say
tithes
:
other
say
,
a
competent
maintenance
,
but
these
reasons
proue
the
ordinary
maintenance
of
ministers
due
.
Now
because
tithes
,
the
ordinary
maintenance
,
could
not
bee
payed
without
great
incumbrance
,
the
reasons
shew
that
in
place
thereof
for
a
time
some
other
thing
must
of
right
bee
payed
.
So
the
Apostle
reasoneth
,
1.
Cor.
9.
13.
Doe
you
not
know
that
they
who
minister
about
the
holy
things
,
eate
of
the
things
of
the
temple
,
and
they
who
waite
at
the
alter
,
are
partakers
of
the
altar
?
So
also
hath
the
Lord
ordained
that
they
who
preach
the
Gospell
should
liue
of
the
Gospell
.
This
reason
concludeth
very
strongly
for
tithes
,
and
for
nothing
else
,
for
it
must
be
graunted
that
the
Apostles
words
concluding
something
certainely
,
doe
rather
conclude
that
which
was
the
ordinarie
maintenance
commonly
receiued
in
the
Church
,
then
that
which
was
neuer
in
vse
in
the
Church
,
certainly
not
in
those
tymes
.
Now
tithes
were
ordinarily
receiued
in
the
Church
,
as
the
ministers
maintenance
,
but
this
competencie
as
it
is
vrged
,
was
neuer
in
vse
in
the
Church
,
surely
not
in
the
Apostolike
times
.
Now
it
were
hard
to
say
that
the
Apostle
reasoneth
for
such
a
thing
as
was
neuer
in
vse
.
Againe
,
the
Apostle
saith
,
the
Lord
hath
ordained
the
ministers
maintenance
,
this
ordinance
is
not
indiuiduum
vagum
,
but
some
certaine
thing
,
beeing
a
part
of
gods
worship
.
Now
we
can
say
that
tithes
are
the
Lords
certaine
ordinance
,
but
who
is
able
to
say
and
proue
so
much
for
this
competent
maintenance
?
As
for
the
vse
and
practise
of
the
Apostles
times
,
assuredly
it
was
no
perpetuall
ordinance
of
the
Lord
,
but
an
extraordinarie
vse
for
a
time
:
wee
seeking
the
ordinary
maintenance
,
and
this
being
extraordinarie
to
indure
but
for
a
short
time
,
shall
neuer
finde
that
which
we
seeke
in
the
vse
and
practise
of
those
times
.
Then
whereas
the
Apostle
saith
,
the
Lord
hath
ordained
that
they
who
preach
the
gospell
,
should
liue
of
the
gospell
,
there
must
be
some
ordinance
of
the
Lord
shewed
,
but
none
can
bee
shewed
,
but
either
tithes
or
the
vse
of
the
Apostolike
times
,
therfore
this
ordinance
must
eyther
be
tithes
,
or
almes
,
but
not
almes
:
for
this
vse
of
the
Apostles
times
were
extraordinarie
,
therefore
the
ordinary
and
perpetuall
ordinance
of
the
Lord
for
the
ministers
maintenance
,
can
be
nothing
else
but
tithes
,
and
that
the
reasons
vsed
by
the
Apostle
doe
in
truth
confirme
tithes
,
albeit
they
name
not
tithes
,
it
is
the
iugdement
of
diuers
fathers
,
as
heere
after
may
appeare
.
Now
that
which
standeth
with
best
reason
,
with
the
perpetuall
and
ordinary
practise
of
the
Church
before
and
since
Christs
time
,
and
hath
the
full
consent
and
testimonie
of
the
auncients
,
I
prefer
before
that
which
standeth
with
no
reason
,
was
neuer
vsed
in
the
Church
,
and
hath
the
testimonie
of
no
auncient
father
.
CHAP.
V.
How
Tithes
stoode
in
the
ages
of
the
Church
after
the
Apostles
,
wherein
the
point
in
question
is
confirmed
by
the
testimonie
of
fathers
without
contradiction
,
vntill
Antichrist
by
vsurped
authoritie
disordered
the
Church
.
HOW
long
that
communitie
of
all
things
lasted
in
the
Church
,
which
began
in
the
Apostles
times
,
wee
cannot
precisely
determine
,
but
it
seemeth
to
haue
beene
in
some
vse
in
Tertullians
time
,
for
so
hee
saith
,
omnia
sunt
as
many
as
were
possessours
of
lands
,
sold
them
and
brought
the
price
to
the
Apostles
:
Afterward
it
was
thought
expedient
for
the
perpetuall
reliefe
of
the
Church
,
that
such
lands
should
not
be
sould
,
and
the
price
giuen
,
but
the
lands
themselues
should
be
giuen
to
the
Church
,
Fassiculus
temporum
ascribeth
this
to
Urbanus
,
praedia
caepit
ecclesia
possidere
huius
(
vrbain
)
tempore
,
de
quibus
clericis
&
notarijs
sumptus
deputabant
qui
gesta
martirum
conscripserunt
,
antea
viuebant
more
Apostolico
qui
in
actis
Apostolorum
scribitur
.
Marsilius
Patauinus
saith
likewise
,
that
Vrban
was
the
first
that
possessed
lands
and
temporalties
,
yet
it
seemeth
that
Albeit
there
may
be
some
question
of
the
authoritie
of
this
testimonie
,
the
credit
whereof
I
will
neuer
seeke
to
salue
:
yet
because
in
a
matter
of
story
,
it
agreeth
with
other
stories
of
that
time
,
I
thincke
it
not
amisse
for
the
stories
sake
to
set
it
downe
as
it
is
in
Gratian
,
and
in
the
first
tome
of
councels
,
Videntes
autem
summi
sacerdotes
,
&
alij
atque
Leuitae
,
&c.
that
is
,
The
chiefe
Bishops
and
other
,
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
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
Quomodo
abundat
iustitia
nostra
plusquam
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
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
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
,
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
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
ground
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
,
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
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
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
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
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
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
Paul
,
the
elders
that
gouerne
well
,
are
worthy
of
double
honor
,
especially
they
who
labour
most
in
the
word
and
doctrine
,
expounding
honour
,
maintenance
:
and
vnderstanding
that
maintenance
,
tithes
.
Out
of
which
testimonies
of
Hierom
(
who
is
by
Erasmus
iudged
the
most
learned
of
the
Latine
Fathers
)
it
may
be
obserued
.
First
,
that
the
precept
of
tithes
is
taken
to
bee
part
of
the
morall
law
,
and
ought
to
be
in
no
lesse
force
among
Christians
then
among
Iewes
,
such
strangers
were
the
learned
Fathers
in
these
late
deuises
which
now
are
found
out
,
that
tithes
should
be
ceremoniall
or
iudiciall
,
for
albeit
these
tearmes
,
decimae
debentur
iure
diuino
,
were
not
in
vse
in
those
auncient
times
,
yet
the
Fathers
expresly
deliuered
that
which
is
aeqiualent
,
that
Christians
are
bound
to
the
law
of
tithes
aswell
as
Iewes
were
:
that
the
precept
for
paying
tithes
is
now
to
bee
vnderstood
in
the
Church
secundum
literam
.
Secondly
,
we
obserue
that
the
reasons
vsed
in
the
new
Testament
by
the
Apostles
doe
truely
in
the
Fathers
iudgements
conclude
for
tithes
,
and
not
for
the
pretended
competency
,
which
thing
was
vtterly
vnknowne
to
the
Fathers
.
Ambrose
faith
:
Quicunque
recognouerit
in
se
quod
he
maketh
the
grasse
to
grow
vpon
the
mountaines
:
he
compareth
the
husband
man
to
the
mountaine
,
that
receiueth
raine
and
bringeth
forth
grasse
,
hee
compareth
preaching
to
the
raine
,
and
tithes
to
grasse
,
ecce
mons
es
,
accipe
pluuiam
,
&
da
faenum
,
and
therefore
a
little
after
he
saith
exime
partem
aliquam
reddituum
tuorum
,
decimas
vis
?
decimas
exime
,
quanquam
parum
sit
,
dictum
est
enim
quia
Pharisaei
decimas
dabant
,
&
quid
ait
.
Dominus
,
nisi
abundauerit
iusticia
vestra
plusquam
Scribarum
&
Pharisaeorum
non
intrabitis
in
regnum
coelorum
,
&
ille
super
quem
debet
abundare
iusticia
tua
,
decimas
dat
,
tu
autem
vix
centessimam
das
.
Where
S.
Augustin
expoundeth
the
words
of
the
Gospell
as
Origen
and
other
Fathers
did
,
as
no
lesse
belonging
,
yea
much
more
to
Christians
then
to
Iewes
.
Hee
speaketh
not
doubting
(
as
some
vnderstand
his
words
)
but
because
the
people
of
his
country
were
so
far
from
performing
this
duetie
,
if
there
bee
any
doubt
in
his
words
,
it
is
onely
in
this
,
whether
the
tenth
part
were
not
too
little
,
for
so
doth
his
words
imply
,
decimas
vis
?
decimas
exime
,
quanquam
paris
sit
.
And
he
whom
thou
must
exceede
in
righteousnesse
payeth
tithes
,
whereby
he
implyeth
,
that
thou
must
pay
more
,
for
hee
doth
not
leaue
it
at
the
peoples
libertie
to
pay
tithes
,
or
not
to
pay
,
as
some
take
it
:
but
sheweth
them
that
were
so
far
from
this
duety
,
that
they
ought
to
pay
tithes
and
yet
doe
more
then
that
.
Leo
the
first
,
liued
in
S.
Augustins
time
,
but
yonger
;
Gratian
citeth
his
words
thus
.
Nullus
decimas
ad
alterum
pertinentes
accipiat
:
not
long
after
this
,
the
councell
called
Marisconense
2.
was
held
,
Concil:
Caebilonēs
:
2.
cap.
19.
concil
:
Melens
.
cap.
2.
Concil.
Valent.
cap.
10.
Concil.
Foreiuliens
.
cap.
vlt.
Concil.
Mogunt
:
cap.
17.
Concil.
Rothomag
.
which
is
thus
cited
by
Gratian
:
Omnes
decimae
terrae
,
siue
de
frugibus
,
siue
de
pomis
arborum
,
domini
sunt
,
&
illi
sanctificantur
Ones
,
boues
,
&
Concil.
Triburiens
.
cap.
13.
and
14.
saith
thus
:
quid
si
dicerit
Dominiss
,
nempe
meus
es
ô
homo
,
mea
est
terra
quam
colis
,
mea
semina
q●●
spargis
,
mea
animalia
quae
fatigas
,
meus
est
solis
ardor
:
&
quum
omnia
mea
sint
,
tu
qui
manus
accomodas
solum
decimam
merebaris
,
sed
seruo
tibi
nouem
,
da
mihi
decimam
,
si
non
dederis
decimam
auferam
nouem
,
si
dederis
mihi
decimam
multiplicabo
nouem.
Si
ergo
querat
aliquis
cur
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
Caesarius
Arelatens
.
Episc
:
saith
,
decimae
non
sunt
nostrae
,
sed
Ecclesiae
.
Walafridus
Strabo
saith
,
decimas
Deo
&
sacerdotibus
eius
dandas
,
Abraham
factis
,
Iacob
promissis
insinuat
,
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
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
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
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
graunt
,
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
,
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
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
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
.
Notes, typically marginal, from the original text
Notes for div A17985-e410
Notes for div A17985-e740
Notes for div A17985-e1200
Notes for div A17985-e3320
Notes for div A17985-e4710
Notes for div A17985-e5150
Notes for div A17985-e8110