Chapter 6

 The 1657 Quaker position on the evils of forced tithing

-- partly based on the earlier work of John Selden.

Having presented a very short history of tithing in the prior chapter, as a brief introduction to this whole important topic, I now want to present in its entirety a pamphlet on the topic of tithing written by a Quaker in 1657. It was 36 pages in the original, which makes for a rather lengthy quote, but the material he covers seems very important to show how corrupted the history and doctrine of tithing had become by 1657 and how corrupt the actual handling of tithing had become at his time, including jailing people indefinitely for not paying up to three times what was imagined to be their "tithing." As a justice of the peace himself, he would be only too aware of the misbehavior of other courts. Some of his descriptions may be meaningless to people who have lived exclusively in cities, but those who own and work the land, as farmers or ranchers, might find some of his detailed treatment of land uses quite interesting. Part of his pamphlet is based on the earlier work of John Selden, who will be discussed below. This pamphlet has been republished many times over the years, in 1850 in this case, which has allowed the language to be updated to be something closer to what we can easily understand today.

I view this Quaker pamphlet partly as a cautionary tale to indicate how deviant and corrupt church and government organizations can become on religious topics. The LDS church today has not yet resorted to confiscating property and jailing people to collect a full tithing, but the pressures to do these kinds of extraordinary things are present at all times once the church has started down the path of doctrinally making tithing paid to a central organization mandatory to gaining salvation. Every time I hear someone repeat the phrase "Will a man rob God?" I wince. Remember that that quote comes from Malachi 3:8 in the Old Testament. That kind of thinking, where non-payment of tithing is made a crime, is the path to the kind of trouble discussed in the Quaker pamphlet. Today we ought to have nothing to do with the old law of Moses or any of the pronouncements that come from that time, as in the Book of Malachi. So, when someone starts quoting the law of Moses and thus perhaps inadvertently trying to reinstitute the law of Moses, my alarm bells go off.

There are many interesting points made in this pamphlet, but one small segment struck me as especially interesting, almost poetic.

    5th, That as the mystery of iniquity began to work, and men's imaginations were taught, instead of the doctrine of Christ, divers men, taking their ground from Moses, began to preach that tithes again ought to be paid. [emphasis added.]

This is the gospel-killing process that has happened over and over throughout the history of the earth. The "mystery of iniquity" phrase is used by Paul in 2 Thess. 2:7.

The last statement from this pamphlet is so profound that it deserves to be read first. After the many explanations of the pamphlet,

And let no man henceforth think it strange, that any should refuse to pay tithes; but rather wonder, that any will pay them.

THE

GREAT CASE OF TITHES

TRULY STATED, CLEARLY OPENED,

AND FULLY RESOLVED.

BY ANTHONY PEARSON,

A JUSTICE OF PEACE IN WESTMORELAND IN THE TIME

OF THE COMMONWEALTH.

LONDON:

Printed for the TRACT ASSOCIATION of the SOCIETY of FRIENDS.

Sold at the DEPOSITORY, 84, Houndsditch.

-

1850.

No. 63.                          [Price 1s. 6d. per dozen.]

ADVERTISEMENT.

The ensuing treatise was first published in the year 1657, and was so well received, that a subsequent Editor says, it passed through three editions in about two years; the present is a reprint of the former editions, with the exception of most of the Latin notes and phrases, and a few omissions and corrections, which are not intended to alter the sense. The Author was a zealous advocate for liberty of conscience in those days, and it appears he was induced to write on this subject, by the many complaints of the people, then labouring under severe prosecutions for tithes. By way of preface, he introduces his work with the following short address.

To the Countrymen, Farmers, and Husbandmen of

England.

It is for your sakes that this small treatise is sent abroad, that in a matter wherein you are so much concerned, you might be truly informed: and because there are many differing opinions, and of late years have been great disputes, concerning the right of Tithes, which makes the case seem difficult to be resolved, I have given you the substance of all that ever I could find written, or hear discoursed, touching that point; and for more than two years last past, I have made much enquiry into it.

First, I have begun with tithing among the Jews, which, either in precept or example, is the foundation of all others.

Secondly, I have given you a short view of the opinions and practices of the primitive church concerning them, and from thence downward until this day.

After which, having made some short observations, I state the case as it concerns us in England. And then hearing what every one hath to say for them, I proceed to satisfy some great objections, and so conclude the whole, in as much brevity as the variety of the subject would permit.

                                                                        A. PEARSON.

THE GREAT CASE OF TITHES.

------------

OF TITHING AMONGST THE JEWS.

God having chosen Aaron and his sons for the office of the Priesthood, and the rest of the tribe of Levi for the service of the Tabernacle, he gave unto the Levites all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance for their service, and they were to have no inheritance among the children of Israel.

            And the Levites out of their tithe, were to offer up a tenth part unto the Lord and give it unto Aaron the priest for him self and his sons; and no other portion had the priests out of the tithes, but they were for the Levites that did the common services of the tabernacle, for the strangers, for the fatherless, and the widows.

            Besides the tenth of the tithe, (Deut. xviii. 4) the priests had the first ripe fruits of the ground, of wheat, of barley, of figs, of grapes, of olives, of pomegranates and dates, at what quantity the owner pleased; an offering also of corn, wine, oil, fleece, and the like, was given to the priests at the sixtieth part, sometimes at the fiftieth or more, at the devotion of the owner. Ezek. xlv. 13.

            Of cattle also the first-born were the Lord's, paid to the priests, of clean beasts in kind, of unclean in money, with a fifth part added: also divers parts of the sacrifices were appointed for the priests. Exod. xiii. 2.

            But no tithes did the priests receive of the people: for those belonged to the Levites that were appointed over the tabernacle, and the instruments thereof, to bear it, to take it down, and set it up, to serve Aaron and his sons, and to do the services of the tabernacle, and keep the instruments thereof; and their service chiefly was upon removing of the host; for better ordering whereof, and every one's service, they were divided into three parts, the Koathites, the Gershonites, and the Merarites, and these received tithes of the people, and out of them, a tenth part they delivered to the priests.

            Afterwards, when Solomon built the temple, and placed the ark therein, other offices were appointed for the Levites; (1 Chron. xxvi., xxx., and xxxii.) one part of them were to be singers; another to be porters, and take the charge of the gates of the temple; another to be keepers of the treasury; others of them also were placed abroad in the country, on the west side of Jordon one thousand seven hundred, and on the east side two thousand seven hundred.

            By this time also, the posterity of Aaron being much increased, the priests were divided into twenty-four ranks or courses, according to the names of their families, and every one's attendance [page 4] was required by turns; and hereupon Zacharias is said to be of the course of Abia, and to execute the priest's office, and burn incense as his turn came, (Luke i.) and the first of the first rank had the pre-eminence, and was the High Priest, and so every one according to their precedency.

            The Levites that were singers were divided, as the priests, into twenty-four ranks or courses; the porters into five parts, one part to every of the four gates of the temple, and the fifth to Asuppim, i.e., the Council-house.

            The treasury was generally committed to one, as the chief, but under him to two sorts of other officers; one to keep the treasures of the house of the Lord, and those things that were offered to the Lord; and the other to keep the dedicate things. In these treasuries were put the second tithes, the offerings of all sorts of people, which were for the uses and services of the temple, for the fatherless, the stranger, and the widow.

            After the captivity, and new dedication of the temple, it appears that, in many particulars, their laws, ordinances, and customs were much changed, especially in this of tithing: but not being pertinent to this discourse, I shall pass them over; only let the reader understand, that though the priests and Levites were both of the tribe of Levi, yet was the priesthood settled in the sons of Aaron, and the offices of the priests were quite different from the Levites, and so was their maintenance distinct.

            These priests and Levites being separated for the work of the Lord in the tabernacle and in the temple, they ministered according to the ordinances of the first covenant which were figures for the time then present, and shadows of good things to come.

----------------------------

A VIEW OF THE DOCTRINES, DECREES, AND PRACTICES OF TITHING, FROM THE INFANCY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH UNTIL THIS DAY.

But in the fulness of time, God raised up another priest, CHRIST JESUS, who was not of the tribe of Levi, nor consecrated after the order of Aaron: for he pertained to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar, who, (having obtained a more excellent ministry, of a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not of the former building, being the sum and substance of all the patterns of things under the first covenant) put an end to the first priesthood, with all its shadows, figures, and carnal ordinances, and changing the priesthood, which had a command to take tithes of their brethren, there was made of necessity also a change of the law, and a disannulling of the commandment going before, which was but imposed until the time of reformation.

            And the apostles and ministers of Christ Jesus, when he had [page 5] finished his office upon earth, by offering up himself through the eternal Spirit, a sacrifice without spot unto God, did not look back to the ordinances of the former priesthood, but testified that an end was put unto them; and witnessed against the temple, wherein the priests ministered, for which Stephen was stoned to death: against circumcision, saying, it was not that of the flesh; against the Passover, priests, &c.; and preached up Christ Jesus and his doctrine, the new and living way, which was not made manifest while as the first tabernacle was standing. Nor did they go about to establish the law by which tithes were given in the former priesthood, but freely they preached the Gospel which they had received, and did not require any settled maintenance, but lived of the free offerings and contributions of the saints, who by their ministry were turned to Christ Jesus.

            At Jerusalem, and thereabouts, such was the unity of heart among the saints in the apostles' time, that all things were in common, and none wanted (Acts iv. 34); and as many as were possessors of lands or houses, sold them, and brought the price, and laid it down at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed unto every man according as he had need.

            So the church gathered by Mark at Alexandria in Egypt, followed the same rule as the Saints did at Jerusalem, having all things in common. And Philo Judaeus, a famous author of that time, reporteth, that not only there, but in many other provinces, the Christians lived together in societies.

            In the churches at Antioch, the saints possessed every man his own estate (Acts xi. 29); so likewise in Galatia and Corinth, where the apostle ordained, that weekly offerings for the saints should be made by every one as God had blessed him (1 Cor. xvi. 2); and by these offerings (which were put into the hands of the deacons of the churches) were all the services and need of the church supplied.

            By example of these, the course of monthly-offerings succeeded in the next ages, not exacted, but freely given at the bounty of every man, as appears plainly by Turtullian in Apolog. cap. 39, where, upbraiding the Gentiles with the piety and devotion of Christians, he saith “Whatsoever we have in the treasury of our churches, is not raised by taxation, as though we put men to ransom their religion; but every man once a month, or when it pleaseth himself, bestoweth what he thinks good, and not without he listeth; for no man is compelled, but left free to his own discretion: and that which is given, is not bestowed in vanity, but in relieving the poor, and upon children destitute of parents, and maintenance of aged and feeble persons, men wrecked by sea, and such as are condemned to the metal mines, banished into islands, or cast into prison, professing the true God, and the Christian faith.” [page 6]

            And this way of contribution continued in the church till the great persecution under Maximinian and Dioclesian, about the year 304, as Eusebius testifieth, which also appears by the writings of Turtullian, Origen, Cyprian, and others.

            About this time also, some lands began to be given to the church, and the revenue of them was brought into its treasury; belonged to the church in common, and was distributed, as other offerings, by the deacons, and elders; but the bishops or ministers meddled not therewith: for Origen saith, “It is not lawful for any minister of the church to possess lands (given to the church) to his own use.” And called to the ministers, “Let us depart from the priests of Pharoah, who enjoy earthly possessions, to the priests of the Lord, who have no portion in the earth.” And in another place he saith, “It behoveth us to be faithful in disposing the rents of the church, that we ourselves devour not those things which belong to the widows and the poor; and let us be content with simple diet and necessary apparel.” And Urban, bishop of Rome, anno 227, did declare, “That the church might receive lands and possessions offered by the faithful, but not to any particular man's benefit, but that the revenues thereof should be distributed as other offerings, as need required.”

            Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, about the year 250, also testifieth the same, and sheweth, that “the church maintained many poor,” and that “her own diet was sparing and plain, and all her expenses full of frugality.”

            Prosper also saith that, “a minister able to live of himself, ought not to participate of the goods of the church; for,” saith he, “they that have of their own, and yet desire to have somewhat given them, do not receive it without great sin.”

            The council at Antioch, in the year 340, (finding that much fault had been among the deacons, to whom it properly belonged,) ordained that “the bishops might distribute the goods of the church,” but required, “that they took not any part to themselves,” or “to the use of the priests and brethren that lived with them, unless necessity did justly require it,” using the words of the apostle, “having food and raiment be therewith content.”

            In these times, in many places, the Christian converts joined themselves in societies, and chose a separate life, selling what they had, and living together in common, after the example of the former saints about Jerusalem, as Chrysostom notes, who lived about the year 400, by whose writings it also appears that there was not the least practice of the payment of tithes in those ages.

            The church now living altogether by free offerings of lands, money, and goods, the people were much pressed to bountiful contributions for holy uses, as may be seen by the writings of [page 7] Hierom and Chrysostom, who brought the Jewish liberality in their payments of tenths for an example, beneath which they would not have Christians determine their charity; where Chrysostom says, “he speaks these things not as commanding or forbidding, that they should give more, yet as thinking it fit, that they should not give less than the tenth part.” Hierom also doth earnestly admonish them “to give bountifully to the poor, and double honour to him that labours in the Lord's work;” not binding at all to offer this or that part, leaving them to their own liberty, but pressing “they might not do less than the Jews did.”

            Ambrose, who was bishop of Milan, about the year 400, preached up tenths to be offered up for holy uses, as may be seen in his Sermon on Repentance; but his authority he produceth wholly from Moses, and quotes divers sentences, and threatens the people, that “if they would not pay their tenths, God would reduce them to a tenth.”

            In like manner Augustin, Bishop of Hippo, hath a whole homily for the right of tithes, and calls upon those that have no fruits of the earth to pay the tenth of whatsoever they live by; and saith, “the neglect of payment of tithes is the cause of sterility and blasting;” and agrees with Ambrose in his threats, that, “God would reduce them to a tenth;” and tells them, “that not paying their tithes they shall be found guilty, at God’s tribunal, of the death of all the poor that perish through want, in the places where they dwell;” and bids them “that would either get reward, or desire the pardon of their sins, to pay their tithes.” These two great bishops agree, and from the law given to the Israelites, take their whole doctrine, and impose their own opinion with heavy penalties. But take notice to what end they require them, that the poor might not want, saying that God had reserved them for their use.

            Leo, who was pope from 440 to 460, was likewise very earnest in stirring up every man's devotion to offer to the church part of his received fruits, but speaks not a word of any certain quantity, as may appear by his sermons.

            Severin also, about the year 470, stirred up the Christians in Panonia, who in example of his bounty, gave the tenth of their fruits to the poor.

            Gregory not only admonisheth the payment of tithes from Moses's law, but also the observing the time of lent, consisting of six weeks, out of which take the Sundays, and there remain thirty-six days, the tenth part of the year, fractions of days omitted; this tenth of time he would have given to God, saying, “we are commanded in the law to give the tenth of all things unto God.”

            And from the opinions of these and other ancient fathers, who [page 8] took their ground from the law, tithes, Easter, Pentecost, and other things, came to be introduced into the church.

            But notwithstanding the doctrine and hard threats of some of the great bishops of that time, it was not a generally received opinion, [as is testified by Agobard, bishop of Lyons,] that tithes ought to be paid; nor till about the year 800 was anything by the then church determined, touching the quantity that should be given; though, no doubt, in many places, amongst the offerings of the devouter sort, tenths, or greater parts of their annual increase were given according to the doctrine of Ambrose and others.

            The offerings of the people in those ages were received and disposed of in maintenance of the priests, and relief of those that were distressed; neither had the priests such a particular interest in the profits received, as of late time they have usurped; all that was received, wheresoever in the bishoprick, was a common treasury, and was dispensed, one fourth part to the priests, out of which every one had his portion; another fourth part to the relief of the poor, sick, and strangers; a third to the building and repairing of churches; and the fourth to the bishop. And generally then, the bishop lived in some monastery, and his clergy with him, from whence he sent them out to preach within the counties in his diocese, and there they received such offerings as were made, and brought them to the treasury.

            And though divers of the fathers, popes, and bishops, did declare that tithes were due, and ought to be paid, none of the first eight general councils of the church did ever so much as mention the name of tithes, or declare them a duty. The ninth, held at Lateran, under Pope Calixtus II., about the year 1119, mentions tithes, but speaks only of those which had been given to the church by special consecration; so doth also the council held under Pope Alexander III., anno 1180, but that only prohibits appropriations to religious houses without assent of a bishop; for, at that time, people being led to believe that their tithes ought to be given for the use of the poor, did chiefly dispose of them to the governors of religious houses, who kept open hospitality for the poor, and entertainment of strangers, and were esteemed holy, as good treasurers for the needy, who took care of the distribution of them, as is testified by Cassian the hermit. But that council seeing much given to the poor, little to the priests, made that decree to restrain the people's freedom; and indeed, by this time much wickedness had crept into these houses, as histories relate.

            Nor was any law, canon, or constitution of any general council as yet found, that purposely commanded the payment of tithes, nor any that expressly supposed them a duty of common right, before the council of Lateran, held in the year 1215, [page 9] under Pope Innocent III.; about which time the pope's authority was grown powerful, and the canons more received into practice, that before were little, especially herein, obeyed.

            About the years 800, 900, 1000, and after, tithes were called the Lord's goods, the patrimony of the poor, &c. Whence also the council at Nants declared, the “clergy were not to use them as their own, but as commended to their trust;” and they were not then given for the clergy, but to be disposed of for the uses of the poor.

            And at this time no regard was had to the nature of the increase; but whatsoever did arise in profit, whether by trade, merchandize, or husbandry, the tenth was required to be paid for tithes.

            But still the people had more mind to give them for the poor than the priests, as may be understood by the complaint of Pope Innocent III., who preaching on Zaccheus's charity, cried out against those that gave their tithes and first-fruits to the poor, and not to the priests, as heinous offenders.

            Also, in a general council held at Lyons, under Pope Gregory X., in the year 1274, it was constituted, “That it should not thenceforth be lawful for men to give their tithes of their own pleasure, where they would, as it had been before, but pay all their tithes to the mother church.” By these it may be seen that though the people, who then generally were Papists, did believe they ought to pay them, yet were they free to dispose them where they pleased, till these councils restrained their liberty.

            But the great decree which speaks most plain, and till which nothing was given forth which did directly constitute them, but rather still supposed them as due by some former right, was made at the council of Trent, under Pope Pius IV., about the year 1560. And yet that great council followed the doctrine of their father, and said, they were due to God, and had no new authority for their great decree, which they command to be obeyed under the penalty of excommunication.

            Having thus briefly run over the ecclesiastical state abroad, from the infant purity of the church to the height of the papal dominion, and taken a glance through every age to the point in hand, I shall now return to what may concern this nation.

            I shall not trouble the reader with a relation of Joseph of Arimathea, and his eleven disciples coming into Britain, sent by Philip the apostle, in the reign of Arviragus, as histories report nor of the conversion of King Lucius afterwards, who is said to have given great endowments to the church; nor of the British Christians. Nothing at all appearing of the payment of tithes in their days. But passing by them, and those many years wherein the Saxons overran this nation, exercising most cruel [page 10] persecutions, till the very name of Christian was blotted out, and those heathens seated in the quiet possession of a sevenfold kingdom in this land.

            About the year 600, Gregory I., then Pope of Rome, sent over Augustin the monk into England, by whom Ethelbert, king of Kent, was converted; and by him and his followers, in process of time, other parts of the nation, and others of the kings were also brought to their faith. This Augustin was a canon regular, and both he and his clergy, for a long time after, followed the example of former ages, living in common upon the offerings of their converts; and those that received them were joined in societies, in imitation of the primitive practice, having such direction sent him by Pope Gregory, that in the tenderness of the Saxon church, he and his clergy should still imitate the community of all things used in the primitive times under the apostles, that they might not make their religion burthensome.

            But afterwards, having brought a great part of the nation to their faith, they began to preach up the old Roman doctrine, that tithes ought to be paid; and having taught the people that the pardon of sin might be merited by good works, and the torments of hell be avoided by their charitable deeds, it was no hard matter, when that was believed, to persuade them not only to give their tithes, but also their lands, as the riches of those called religious houses may testify: for in this nation, they and the clergy had almost gotten the third part of the whole land; and so besotted were the poor ignorant people, that, had not a law against Mortmain prevented it, a far greater part of the nation had been in their hands.

            As concerning laws and canons for tithes among the Saxons, it is reported that, in the year 786, two legates were sent from Pope Hadrian I. to Offa, King of Mercland, and AElfwolfe, king of Northumberland, who made a decree, “That the people of those two kingdoms should pay tithes.”

            Also that Ætheluph, king of the West Saxons, in the year 855, made a law, that the tithe of all his own lands should be given to God and his servants, and should be enjoyed free from all taxes. Great difference is among historians about this grant, few agreeing in the words or substance of it, as Selden shews, some restraining it to the tithe of his own demesne lands; others to the tenth part of his lands; others to the tithe of the whole nation. At that time, the nation being under great and heavy pressures by Danish irruptions, intestine wars, great spoils, and miseries, he called a council, where were present Bernredus, king of Mercia, and Edmond, king of East Angles, and they, to remove the heavy judgments then over them, granted the “tithe of all their land to God and his servants.”

            King Athelstone, about the year 930, king Edmond, about [page 11] ! the year 940, king Edgar, about the year 970, king Ethelred, about the year 1010, king Kanute, about the year 1020, Edward the Confessor, and others of the Saxon kings, made several laws for tithes, as histories report.

            The Normans afterwards entering this kingdom, and subduing it to themselves, William the Conqueror confirmed the liberties of the church; so did Henry I., Henry II, king Stephen, and it may be, others of the succeeding kings did the like.

            Some episcopal constitutions also have been made to the same effect by Robert Winchelsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, and others.

            That the reader may understand the principles upon which these men acted, and the doctrine then preached amongst them, and received and believed, I have inserted the preamble of a grant of king Stephen, which runs thus—“Because through the providence of Divine mercy, we know it to be so ordered, and by the churches publishing it far and near, every body has heard that, by the distribution of alms, persons may be absolved from the bonds of sin, and acquire the rewards of heavenly joys, I, Stephen, by the grace of God, king of England, being willing to have a part with them, who by an happy kind of trading, exchange heavenly things for earthly; and smitten with the love of God, and for the salvation of my own soul, and the souls of my father and mother, and all my forefathers and ancestors,” &c. And so he goes on and confirms divers things that had been granted to the church, as tithes and other things.

            But notwithstanding the many laws, canons, and decrees of kings, popes, councils, and bishops, “that every man ought to pay the tenth part of his increase;” yet was it left to the owner to confer it where he pleased, which made so many rich abbeys and monasteries; and till the year 1200, or thereabouts, every one gave their tithes at their own pleasure, which made Pope Innocent III. send his decretal epistle to the Bishop of Canterbury, commanding him to enjoin every man to pay his temporal goods to those that ministered spiritual things to them, which was enforced by ecclesiastical censures; and this was the beginning of general parochial payment of tithes in England—see the second part of Coke's Institutes, “And because the pope's decree seemed reasonable, it was admitted and enjoined by the law of the nation, king and people being then papists.”

            This decree of the pope, receiving all possible assistance from the bishops and the priests, in whose behalf it was made, did not only in a short time take away the people's then claimed right to give their tithes to those that best deserved them, but did also so much corrupt the clergy, that, in the time of Richard II., Wickliffe, our famous reformer, made heavy complaint to the Parliament, which I have inserted in his own words, for the [page 12] reader's satisfaction—“Ah, Lord God! where this be reason to constrain the poor people to find a worldly priest, sometimes unable both of life and cunning, in pomp and pride, covetisse and envy, gluttonness, drunkenness, and lechery, in simony and heresie, with fat horse and jolly, and gay saddles and bridles ringing by the way, and himself in costly clothes and pelure, and to suffer their wives and children, and their poor neighbours perish for hunger, thirst, and cold, and other mischiefs of the world: ah, Lord Jesu Christ! sith within few years men paid their tithes and offerings at their own will, free to good men, and able to great worship of God, to profit and fairness of holy church fighting in earth, why it were lawful and needful that a worldly priest should destroy this holy and approved custom, constraining men to leave this freedom, turning tithes and offerings unto wicked uses.”

            That the meaning of this, and the practice of the nation in this matter, may the better be understood, it is needful to inform the reader, that when the pope's doctrine was received in a nation, that nation was divided into so many bishoprics as were needful, and every bishopric into so many, parishes as were thought convenient, and till then, most preachers were sent out of the monasteries and religious houses, and the people did at their own free will give their tithes and offerings where they pleased, which liberty they enjoyed till about the year 1200. And though it was generally believed that tithes ought to be paid, yet did no man claim any property therein, but every owner of the nine parts was required to give the tenth part to the priest and the poor, as due unto God.

            But now the pope, having set up parishes, did enjoin, that a secular priest canonically instituted, should attend the service of each parish, and that where tithes were not already settled, they should be paid to the parish priest, notwithstanding any custom to the contrary; the people then generally being papists, did yield obedience, as they durst not do otherwise; and it may easily be supposed that, having persuaded the people to pay tithes, it was no hard matter to appoint the persons to whom they should be given.

            Parishes being set up, priests appointed, and tithes paid to them, after forty years’ possession, what before was owned as a gift, was now claimed as a debt; and prescription was pleaded by the priests as their just title; the people then seeing themselves in a snare, began to contend, but the pope, to uphold his clergy, thundered out his interdict against this nation, excommunicated the king, frighted the subjects, with his bulls against the arbitrary disposal of tithes: and Rome, now grown formidable, did highly insult over kings and princes: witness Frederick Barbarossa, Henry VI., and other princes of the [page 13] empire; and the stories of our Henry II. and king John; also our Richard I., to gratify the clergy for their liberality, in contributing to his ransom from captivity, gave them an indulgent charter of their liberties, and in this advantageous time, the Canon laws gained such force, that parochial payments became general. Notwithstanding, our English parliaments, unwilling wholly to forget the poor, for whose sake tithes were chiefly given, made divers laws, “That a convenient portion of the tithes should be set apart for the maintenance of the poor of the parish for ever.” Richard II., 15. 6. 4. Henry IV.

            The pope having by these means brought in tithes, and made a pretended title by prescription, set up courts to recover them, which were called ecclesiastical courts, where his own creatures were judges, and thus the poor people might easily know what they had to expect from them; yet no greater punishment could they inflict on those that did not pay, than excommunication out of their church.

            The pope always willing to favour his chief props, notwithstanding his general decree, could tell how to dispense with his own lands at his pleasure, and therefore frequently granted exemptions to divers orders, to free them from payment of tithes; witness the Hospitallers, Cistercians, Templars, and generally to all lands held in the occupation of those called religious persons and houses, which is the ground of all their claims, who have bought the lands of dissolved monasteries, &c., and say they are tithe-free.

            When the pope, by colour of the Jewish laws, had gained an universal payment of tithes to all his clergy, in further imitation of that earthly tabernacle, set up a new building after the former pattern, and therefore to himself claimed first-fruits and tenths, as a successor of the Jewish high-priest; sins also he undertook to pardon; cardinals also he appointed as leaders of their families; mitres they wore on their heads, as Aaron did; synagogues they built, with singers, porters, &c., and into the form of the levitical priesthood they transformed themselves, thereby denying Christ Jesus, (the end of types and figures,) to be come in the flesh.

            Afterwards, Henry VIII, king of England, being a papist, and believing the pope's doctrine, as also did his parliament, “that tithes were due to God and holy church,” made a law that every one should set out and pay his tithes.

            And seeing this is the great law, and the first of our parliamentary laws for tithes, and that upon which the rest are grounded, I shall here insert the preamble of it.

            “Forasmuch as divers numbers of evil-disposed persons, having no respect to their duties to Almighty God, but against right and good conscience have attempted to substract and withhold, [page 14] in some places the whole, and in some places great part of their tithes and oblations, as well personal as predial, due unto God and holy church,” &c.

            A second law in his time was also made to the like purpose, and in pursuance of the former: and great reason he had, and need there was for them; for having dissolved many monasteries which had many tithes and rectories appropriated to them, and either had them in his own hands, or sold them to others, to be held as lay-possessions, and they having no law whereby to recover them, the pope's laws not reaching the lay persons, he was necessitated to make new laws to enforce the payment of them, which, the better to colour over the matter, he made in general terms, but still restrained the trial of tithes to the ecclesiastical courts.

            After him, Edward VI., in pursuance of his father's laws, and upon the same ground, made another law for the payment of predial and personal tithes, under penalty of treble damages, who also restrained the trial to the ecclesiastical courts. These laws suppose that tithes were due to God and holy church, and therefore they require, “That every man do yield and set out his tithes as had been accustomed.”

            In pursuance of these laws, some ordinances were made in the time of the long parliament, in the exigencies of the war, because the courts of justice were obstructed.—And these are the substance of all our English laws concerning tithes.

            Having thus briefly run over the laws and practices of tithing, both abroad and in this nation, I shall give some hints of the opinions of former times concerning tithes. About the year 1000 and 1200 after Christ, when tithes were generally preached up and claimed, great controversy arose between the canonists and the clergy, by what immediate law tithes were payable.

            The canonists generally ground themselves upon the decrees and canons of the church, and on the writings of Augustin, Ambrose, and the rest of the ancient fathers, who say they are due by divine right.

            The clergy of those times were at a difference among them selves, some of them saying that tithes, as a determined part, are due only by positive and ecclesiastic law; but as a competent part to be allowed for the maintenance of the ministry, are due by divine law; and that the tenth part was decreed by the church, in imitation of the Jewish state, and not by any continuing force of it under the Gospel; and that the church was not bound to this part, but freely might as well have ordained the payment of a ninth or eighth, according to the various opportunity. This was taught by Hales, Aquinas, Henricus de Grandavo, R. de Midiâ villâ, Cardinal Cajetan, Io. Mayer, Suarez, Malder, and others, who say, “It is the common opinion of [page 15] the greatest part of the clergy of that time,” and that the “tenth part was rather ceremonial than moral.” -

            Here also was made a distinction, and many said that predial and mixed tithes were due by the divine ecclesiastical law; but personal tithes only by the decrees of the church; and therefore in Venice and other cities, where no predial tithes are, a personal tithe is required by the positive law of the church, by virtue of the substance (not ceremony) of the command.

            Another opinion (and that owned by many) was drawn from the former doctrine, which concluded that, seeing tithes were not enjoined by the command of God, therefore they were mere alms, and to be dispensed as what was justly due to charity. Of this opinion were the Dominicans and Franciscans, who both began about the year 1210, and by their doctrine got many tithes to be given to their monasteries, and that whatsoever was given to the four orders of mendicant friars, was a sufficient discharge from the priests.

            And our famous reformers, John Wickliffe, Walter Brute, William Thorpe, and others, whose arguments are at large in Fox's Acts and Monuments, did in their days bear their testimony against tithes, for which some of them suffered in the flames.

            Agreeing herewith are the articles of the Bohemians, published nearly three hundred years since, wherein a divine right to tithes since the Gospel is denied; whereupon also long since they took all their temporalities from their ministers; and before Wickliffe's time, Gerardus Sagarellus was of the same mind. And the great Erasmus also said, that the common exacting of tithes by the clergy of his time was no better than tyranny.

            Having thus briefly run over the doctrines, decrees, practices, and opinions concerning tithes; I shall make some short observations thereupon, that the reader may understand whereunto they tend, and then proceed to the matter as it concerns us at this day, wherein he will find the knowledge of these things will be useful.

            1st, That amongst the Jews, tithes were paid to the Levites that did the common services of the tabernacle and temple, and not to the sons of Aaron, the priests; for they had only a tenth part out of the tithes, and therefore he that pleads for tithes from the Mosaical laws for tithing, had need consider how the payment of tithes to ministers, succeeds to the payment of tithes to the Levites, who were not priests, nor were to touch or meddle with that holy office, lest they died.

            2d, That among the Jews, no outward law was appointed for the recovery of tithes; but he that did not pay them robbed God, and by him only was punished. -

            3d, That the tithes were not for the Levites only, but for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, who were to eat thereof, and be satisfied. [page 16]

            4th, That when the Levitical priesthood was changed by the coming of Christ Jesus, the law for tithing was also changed, as Paul wrote to the Hebrews: for it is evident, that in the beginning of the church, for the first three hundred years, while the purity and simplicity of the Gospel was retained, no tithes were paid among Christians.

            5th, That as the mystery of iniquity began to work, and men's imaginations were taught, instead of the doctrine of Christ, divers men, taking their ground from Moses, began to preach that tithes again ought to be paid.

            6th, That those that first preached up tithes, pressed the payment of them, not for the maintenance of a ministry only, but chiefly for provision for the poor and needy.

            7th, That in the first practice of the payment of tithes, they were not paid as tithes, but as free offerings, at the bounty of the giver, and not as answering any law that required the tenth part, and so more properly were called offerings than tithes.

            8th, That notwithstanding any doctrines preached, it was not a received doctrine, that tithes ought to be paid, till about the year 1000, that the pope had then sent up his authority, and usurped dominion over the greatest part of Europe, and almost all emperors, kings, and princes were brought into subjection to him, and his superstitions. -

            9th, That notwithstanding the strict commands of the pope, no compulsory law was made by the pope or his councils, to enforce any to pay tithes, but only their excommunication.

            10th, That tithes were always accounted an ecclesiastical duty, and therefore by ecclesiastical courts were tried and judged; and till the dissolution of abbeys, &c., were never called a civil right.

            11th, That tithes were brought in as a duty owing unto God, and were so required and enforced, and therefore all laws made for the payment of tithes, take that for their ground, and not any civil property or right in him that claims them.

            12th, That till the year 1200, or thereabouts, it was the common practice for every one to bestow his tithes where he pleased.

            13th, That from such arbitrary dispositions, abbeys and monasteries came to be so richly endowed with tithes and rectories.

            14th, That all exemptions from payment of tithes, came from the pope.

            15th, That first-fruits and tenths are but a late innovation, and claimed by the pope as successor to the Jewish high-priest, as Coke in the third part of his Institutes also testifies.

            16th, That tithes are the same thing, whether claimed by an abbey, or impropriator, or a priest, and stand upon the same ground and foundation, and differ nothing but in the person that possesseth them. [page 17]

            17th, Here also the declining state of the church to corruption and error may be clearly discerned and traced: for as the power of truth was lost, so was the fruit thereof, which caused such earnest pressing to needful contributions, and when that would not serve, laws and decrees were made to enforce them; but in the beginning it was not so; for while the purity and simplicity of the Gospel was retained, they needed no pressing, for their charity then abounded not only to the tenth part, but even greater parts, as the need of the church required.

            18th, That the right of tithes was never cleared, but remained in controversy, even among the greatest papists, and in all ages there were those that withstood the payment of them; and many of the martyrs for that, among other things, suffered in flames.

            These things thus premised, I shall briefly state the great CASE and Question, at this day chiefly controverted concerning tithes, as claimed and paid in England, viz.–

Whether any person have a true and legal property in the tenth part of another man's increase, now called Tithes?

            The terms are plain, and need no opening: yet it is needful to declare why the case is thus stated; for the great question rather seems to be, Whether Tithes be not due at this day?

            That may be due to another, wherein yet he may have no legal property, as custom, tribute, taxes, which are to be paid because commanded by the state; and though law and equity obliges the payment, yet is no distinct property in him that commands; and so tithes may be supposed to be due, because so many laws have been made for payment of them, though the person that claims them may have no particular interest or property therein, other than is derived from the command.

            But now in England, tithes are not only claimed by virtue of divers laws, but also as being a distinct property, severed from the property of the nine parts. -

            And if this could clearly be evinced, all scruples of conscience were answered: for if a true and legal property be in another person to the tenth part of my increase, I ought in conscience to yield and set it forth, because it is not mine; and then the name of tithe, as having in any measure relation to the Jewish priesthood, or popish clergy, were at an end, but as a debt it ought to be truly paid to the proprietor.

            Many things have been said, and much written, to prove such a property, the substance whereof, as far as hath come to my knowledge, I shall briefly sum up under these general heads; as also the grounds of those who claim them to be due, and yet plead no property, which being the lesser, may be fully included and answered in the other. [page 18]

THE SEVERAL CLAIMS MADE FOR TITHES, AND A LEGAL PROPERTY THEREIN ANSWERED.

            1. The first claim tithes to be due, jure divino, and produce the law of Moses for it.

            2. Others say that tithes are not now due by the law of God; only the equity of the law is still of force, which obligeth to afford a competent maintenance for the ministry, but doth not bind to the certain quantity.

            3. Others plead the decrees, canons, and constitutions of general councils, popes, bishops, convocations, and these say, that tithes are due jure ecclesiastico.

            Under these several claims, or some of them, have tithes been demanded and paid, since the dark night of apostacy overspread the earth under the papal power, till the pope's supremacy and religion was cast off in England; and where the popish religion is professed, they are now by the same demanded and paid.

            But now of late in England new claims are made, and a human right is pleaded, which I shall briefly bring under these few heads.

            1. The gifts of kings and princes who were rulers of the people, as Ethelwolph, &c.

            2. The temporal laws of kings, parliaments, &c.

            3. The particular gifts, appropriation, consecration, or donation, of those who were former owners of the land.

            4. Prescription, and a legal right by their possession.

            5. A legal right by purchase.

            And besides these, I never heard or read of any other pretence for tithes, though I have diligently, for two years and more, laboured to inform myself fully what could be alleged for them.

            To begin with the first, those that say tithes are due by divine right. -

            Some of them say, That the law given to Israel for payment of tenths to the tribe of Levi, doth also oblige Christians to pay tenths to their ministers, as succeeding in the priest's office.

            Answ.  To such it is clearly answered, that the priesthood which had a commandment to take tithes being changed by Christ Jesus, there is made of necessity also a change of the law; and now the priesthood is no more committed to the offspring of Levi, or any other tribe, but to Christ Jesus the unchangeable priesthood, whose kingdom stands not in figures and carnal ordinances, but is the substance of what that was but a figure. And it is clear the primitive churches were assured of it, who for some hundreds of years never called for the payment of tithes, as is before plainly proved.

            And how doth a Gospel ministry succeed to the Levites, who [page 19] received tithes, but were not priests? Much more colour had the choristers, singing men, and the rest of the rabble brought into the late cathedrals, to claim them, and only to pay out a tenth part to the priests as the Levites did.

            Others say, That Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec, which was before the levitical priesthood; and Christ Jesus is made a priest after the order of Melchisedec.

            Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, was met by Melchisedec, who brought him bread and wine, and Abraham gave him the tenth of the spoil. But what is this to the payment of tithes, unless it oblige the soldiers? For it doth not appear that Abraham paid the tenth part of his own increase; nor doth it appear that Abraham gave the tenth part at any other time; and how will this prove a yearly payment of tithes to ministers?

            And what if Jacob gave tithes? How are either of these examples more binding than any other of the good acts that either of these holy men did?

            Object. If it be said that Jesus Christ said, “Ye tithe mint, &c., these things ye ought not to leave undone:”

            It is answered, that Jesus Christ then spoke to the Jews, in the time when the levitical priesthood was not ended, who were bound by the law, so long as it was of force, till he was offered up, and said, it is finished.

            But though divine right hath been long pretended, few are now left who will stand to it, and the generality, both of lawyers, priests, and people, are of a contrary mind.

            For if tithes be absolutely due by the law of God, no custom, usage, prescription, privilege, or popish dispensation, can acquit from payment of the utmost penny of the tenth part; but scarce the tenth person in England payeth tithe in kind, and many plead they are tithe free, and pay none at all, and others very small matters; and so the greatest part of the people of England deny tithes to be due by God's law.

            Again, if tithes be due by the law of God, then it is to the end for which they were commanded, for the Levites, the strangers, the fatherless, and the widows; all therefore who plead for tithes by divine right, must not pay them to an impropriator; for by God's law he cannot claim, neither ought any impropriator, of that mind, to receive them.

            And of late years, it was by Rolls, chief justice, adjudged in the upper bench, that tithes are not now due by the law of God.

            2. Those that plead the equity of the law is still of force.

            These plead not for tithes properly, but for a comfortable maintenance, and by way of tithes, as they suppose most convenient, &c. And these bring many Scriptures in the New Testament. “That he that labours is worthy of his hire: he that [page 20] preacheth the Gospel ought to live of the Gospel; let him that is taught communicate to him that teacheth;” and the like.

            And to such I say, that not only the equity of the levitical law for tithing, the doctrine of Christ Jesus and his apostles do bind, but even from natural things we are largely taught our duty therein; “No man muzzleth the mouth of the ox; and no man goeth a warfare at his own charge; and he that plants a vineyard eats the fruit thereof.” And herein it is agreed, that the ministers of Christ Jesus, who are called to his service, and labour in the word, ought to be comfortably provided for, that they go not a warfare at their own charge.

            But this doth not require that the worldly should contribute, much less be compelled, to give a certain portion of the fruits of their labours towards the maintenance of Christ's ministers.

            And these grant, that every man is the sole owner of his own labour and possession; and though by another he may not be compelled, for such sacrifice God abhors, yet ought every one freely to glorify God with his substance, to strengthen the weak hands and feeble knees, and to give to him that teacheth those things that are needful, and such cheerful givers God accepts.

            And this leaves every one free to give to him that teacheth, not binding to the maintenance of those who have less need than the giver, or of those who are transformed as apostles and ministers of Christ, who have the form, but want the power, who teach for filthy lucre, keeping ever learning, but cannot bring to the knowledge of the truth.

            And of such as Christ Jesus sent forth, he always took care, and they never wanted, but they reaped the fruits of their labour, and eat the fruits of their own vineyards, which they had planted, and by the churches who were gathered out of the world, were they maintained to preach the Gospel to the world, unto whom they would not make the Gospel chargeable or burdensome, which was their glory and their crown. For in this it is assented, that the ministers of Christ Jesus, who sow unto us spiritual things, should reap of our temporals. But here is the difference, 1st, That our consciences must be our judge, who those ministers are; for to the conscience were Christ's ministers always made manifest. 2dly, That our gift must be free, and by no man's compulsion.

            3. A third sort plead the decrees, canons, constitutions of general councils, popes, bishops, convocations.

            To such I shall only say that, for the first eight hundred years after Christ, no canon, or decree was made by general council, nor was it then determined by the church what part every man should pay. And the first eight general councils do not so much as speak of the name of tithes, and that was till about a thousand years: and then about that time it came to be [page 21] received and believed that tithes ought to be paid; yet in England, as well as other nations, every man might have given his tithe where he pleased, till about the year 1200, as is already proved. But I need not say much to these, few being of this mind but those that own the pope for their head, we having in England denied and cast off his supremacy, though in this matter of tithes, and many other things, we still feel his power among us.

            And now having briefly gone over the substance of what is pleaded for a divine or ecclesiastic right, I come next to what is pretended for a human right. -

            And first, the gift of kings, as Ethelwolph, &c.

            To this I answer, if they could prove the whole land had been the particular possession of any such king, they said something; though that would not justify the taking tithes from all the people, as shall be more fully proved hereafter. But by what right could he give the tenth part of the increase and fruits of the labours of all the people of his dominions, who had no legal property therein? It was an easy matter, when the pope's emissaries had taught the people, “that tithes were due to God and them;” and had persuaded kings and nobles “that heaven might be purchased by their works,” to procure from them the gift of that which was not their's, the poor people's tithes; especially considering the people were of the same mind, and as zealous of all the popish superstitions as themselves, and every one striving who should therein most excel; witness those many rich abbeys and monasteries, lately in this land. But if that king Ethelwolph's grant be the foundation of tithes, then how many succeeding kings and bishops, and others, have violated his deed, by appropriating them to abbeys, monasteries, and such like houses? And how have all ages since Ethelwolph's time taken upon themselves the disposal of tithes, without any relation to what he did? Which shews clearly, that neither kings, parliaments, nor people, did ever hold themselves bound by his grant. But the folly of this argument will more plainly appear hereafter.

            The next, and those which seem to have the strongest plea, do urge the temporal laws of kings and parliaments, and say, By the law they have as good property in tithes as any man hath in his lands.

            Answ. To such I say, the law doth not give any man a property, either in land or tithes, or any other thing, but only doth conserve to every man his property, which he hath in his land and possessions, either by gift, purchase, or descent, and secure him from the injury or violence of another.

            But let us not be deceived with a new pretence, lately taken up to delude simple minds, of a legal property and a civil right; [page 22] for that is but a shift when they see their other claims will not serve; but hear what the makers of the laws say of them; and passing by the Saxons' times, and king Stephen, let us come to Henry VIII., who cast off the pope, and upon whose law all others that were since made are built; and in the preamble of the act it is declared, “That tithes are due to God and holy church,” and they blame men for being so wicked as not to pay them, and therefore that law is made; and here is the ground of the law, not any property or civil right in priests or others, and therefore if the law require them as due by divine right, he that saith they are only due by human right cannot claim them, nor ought to recover them by that law, for he claims them by another right; and for any man to claim that by human right from human law, which commands them as due by divine right, is but a mere deceit. And that law of Henry VIII., and the rest, did not upon any civil ground set up, or constitute the payment of tithes, but takes it for granted, that “tithes are due to God and holy church;" and therefore the foundation of the law being taken away, “that they are due to God and holy church,” the law falls to the ground; for the law not making them due, but supposing them due by a former right, if they were not so due, the law cannot be binding.

            That tithes were never, till now of late, claimed of civil right is plain; for as they were imposed by the pope, so they were triable in his courts; and those very laws made by late parliaments did appoint them to be tried in the ecclesiastical courts, and restrained the temporal jurisdiction, as the acts themselves testify.

            But what is the property that is now claimed? Is it in a person? That cannot be, for the priest hath them not till he enters his office, and when he parts with that he loseth his tithes. So the priest hath no property but his office; and what is that? It was a popish office when tithes were first paid to it; and how comes the property to continue now the office is laid aside, and the pope that set them up? But how can a civil right or property be pretended, when the author was the pope? the end for a spiritual office, and recovered in an ecclesiastical court?

            In the act of 32nd Henry VIII., tithes are called spiritual gifts. And there of impropriate tithes sold after the dissolution, it is said they are now made temporal. And before that time it was never heard that tithes were called a temporal right.

            But it is farther said, these laws were made by Parliaments, the representatives of the people: and though tithes were not due before, yet they might give tithes, because their own, they being the body of the people.

            This would suppose a particular consecration, or donation of the people, not only as in their legislative capacity to bind [page 23] themselves by a law, but by a particular act of free gift: But it is plain, the act never intended any such thing, for it gives nothing, but commands what was before.

            And as to the law itself, and all other laws of kings, parliaments, popes, councils and bishops, for the payment of tithes, since Christ Jesus came in the flesh, how do they all or any of them bind the conscience? For if tithes be not due by the law of God, as is herein proved, and almost generally granted, who hath set them up? the law of man at best: And who is man, that makes a law in the place where God disannulled his own command? Is it better to obey man than God? or is man grown wiser than his maker? Who put this power into the hand of man, to raise a compulsory maintenance for ministers? it may be to set up and maintain those who are contrary to Christ, instead of Christ's ministers, who never looked for, nor durst own such a way of provision. Will any say they have power? From whom had they it? Is it derived from the people? That cannot be. Have they any power committed to them as magistrates? if so, the Turk, and all infidel magistrates have the like: Or is it as they are Christian magistrates? Then may not France, Spain, &c., claim the same?  For what nation in Europe will not say they have a Christian magistracy. And may not they by as good right require and compel maintenance for their ministers, as Henry VIII., or any other? But that I may not be mistaken, as if I went about to take away the magistrate's power to raise taxes, assessments, or other charges, for the service and defence of the nation, it is needful to distinguish between those things that are civil, and such as are spiritual: For civil ends and uses, the people may give power to their representatives to raise moneys, or any other civil thing, because in such things they are their own masters: But in matters of religion, no man can give power unto another, to impose any thing upon himself, or his neighbour; for in those things every one is to be accountable unto God. And thus “we give unto God the things that are God's; and unto Caesar the things that are his;” paying tribute to whom tribute is due. But as for all laws made in the will of man, in the things of God, they reach not the conscience, and therefore make no sin against God.

            And as concerning the laws of King Henry VIII., and Edward VI., it may be considered, some of them were made by a popish king and parliament, and the rest, in the glimmerings of light, when men were but seen as trees; and therefore, to make their laws a rule for this day of clear and sunshine light, is a shame to our Reformation. And if it be said, papists might and did make good laws; it is true, in temporal things they did, but not in things of religion.

            But were the law just in commanding tithes, can it be equal to [page 24] give double or treble damage, where they are not paid?  If any man owe a just and due debt, no more by law can be recovered, but what the debt is, besides the charges of the law: How cruel, therefore, are these laws and ordinances, which in a matter of so much just scruple, require and impose the double or treble value? And how unrighteous are all such persons, as by force of such laws receive them?  For if tithes were due, is therefore the treble value due, because the law hath made that penalty? Where is equity or justice in either? The pope and his adherents did only excommunicate the refuser till he conformed; and till these late laws, such penalties as imprisonment, and treble damage were never known. And here what was by our forefathers begun in ignorance, we build up, and confirm with tyranny, and instead of their rods, make to ourselves scorpions.

            But herein is not all, but the law requires every man to set out the tenth, and so makes him a voluntary agent in that, against which his conscience testifies, which is most cruel and unrighteous; and him that cannot do so, they sue and hale before courts and magistrates, and there they get judgment of treble damage, and by that judgment, frequently take five-fold, yea sometimes ten-fold the value. Shall not these things render this age, which so much pretends to reformation, contemptible to future generations? And for these things, shall not even papists rise up in judgment against us and condemn us?

            But how is it that any law for tithes is now executed? Do not all laws and statutes for tithes restrain the trial of them to the ecclesiastical courts, and prohibit the temporal courts from meddling with them? [This was in the time of the commonwealth.] And since the ecclesiastical courts are destroyed, Who have power to give judgment for tithes? No temporal judge proceeding according to the laws for tithing. How, is it then, that so many persons are sued, prosecuted, and unjustly vexed for tithes in all the courts at Westminster; and not only so, but in the Sheriff's court, and other petty courts in the country?

            Object. If it be said, The statute gives double damages and costs, and no court being appointed where that shall be recovered, it must be supposed to be the common law courts.

            I answer by asking, of what must they give the double or treble damage, seeing they are restrained from trying for the single value?  If they cannot judge the one, how can they award the other? Will they condemn an accessory before they try the principal? What is this but to make the law a nose of wax, to uphold unrighteousness.

            Object. It will be said, justices of peace have power. It may be so by an ordinance, but no act of parliament, which is the law of England; and that they do it many poor people feel; for generally they give treble damages for all manner of tithes, [page 25] whereas the statute gave but double and costs, and that only for predial tithes. And they usually execute their precepts by such persons as will do it effectually, who take generally five times more than the value, which they appraise and sell far under the worth. I write what I can prove by manifold instances.

            Though these oppressions be many and great, yet are they not all that this age exercises; for by a new device, under pretence that priests are not able to pay tenths to the protector, unless every man pay them their tithes, they sue men for all manner of tithes by English bill in the Exchequer, and there force them upon their oaths to declare what tithes they have; whereas in the ecclesiastical courts the ordinary might not examine a man upon his own oath concerning his own tithe. And here such as either make conscience of swearing, which Christ forbids, or cannot themselves tell what tithe they had, are cast into prison for contempt, where they may lie as long as they live, no law in the nation reaching them any relief. And divers upon this account have long lain in the Fleet, and yet are there: [this was in the year 1655. See the Suff. of the Quakers]; and I believe above an hundred suits are in the Exchequer depending, and proceedings stopt at this point; the hearts of the very officers of the court relenting with pity towards such numbers of poor men brought thither every term, from the most remote parts of the nation, and some of them not for above twelve pence.

            O shameful reformation! What! compel a man himself to set out the tithe of his own goods to maintain a priest, it may be one openly profane, and so make him sin against his own conscience! And not only so, but to force him to swear what tithes he had, or commit him to prison, there to lie without hope of relief. Must we still have priests and tithes? Then may we not wish for old priests, and old ecclesiastical courts? For much more moderation was in them, that even Papists would blush at our cruelties. Did but the magistrate see what havock is made in the north, what driving of oxen out of the plough, the cows from poor and indigent children, what carrying of pots and kettles, yea, and fetching the very clothes off poor people's beds, he would either be ashamed of such justices, or such priests or tithes, or of them all. Such instances I could give as would make the reader's ears to tingle; and he that cannot believe me, let him send into Cumberland, and he shall meet with few that cannot inform him of it; or do but let him go a little after harvest, and he may find the justices as busy as if they had little other work. But whither have I digressed? Let me return to hear what the next can say.

            3. And these plead the gift of those that were formerly possessors of the land, and say, Those that pay tithes do but that which their ancestors justly charged upon them. [page 26]

            To such I answer, that it is true many ancestors gave tithes, which of them were required, as before hath been declared; but what is that to us? Or how are we thereby bound? Did ever any man, in any deed or conveyance of his land, express any such gift, or make any exception of tithes?  I never saw or heard of such a thing; and let those who can find such reservations make their claim; but I believe it will not be in England. That which this sort pleads, seems to make a ground for a distinct property; for if there be a property, it must of necessity arise from him that was the true owner, and had power to charge himself and his posterity; and these say, They have as good right to the tenth part as the owner hath to the nine, and that he never purchased it, and the like. Unto all which I answer, that though it were true, and could be proved that mine ancestors gave tithes, and that for ever, yet am I not thereby bound to pay them or stand any way chargeable with them. It is true, when they were owners of land, they might themselves yield and set forth what part of their increase they pleased, or might have given the tenth, or any other part of their land, as they would, or they might have charged upon the land what rent they liked; but they could not charge their posterity with that which was no-way their's, nor which in any true sense or construction they could be said to have any property in, and which is not paid by reason of that which is derived from them; for tithe is neither paid of land, nor by reason of the land, but is paid by reason of the increase of renewing; and therefore the doctrines of the old fathers, the statute of Edward VI., and so the popish laws for tithes do as well require the payment of the tenth part of men's profits and gain, whether by trade, commerce, or merchandize, as of the fruits of the earth, yea, the tenth part of wages, and all personal increase. And surely no man will say, that he pays tithe of these because his ancestors charged him with it; nor will any man allow that another person, by any gift of ancestors, can have distinct property in the tenth part of the fruit of his labours; and the case is the same as to all tithes, whether predial, personal, or mixt. If I sit still and plough not, no corn will grow. If I sit still, and work not, no profit will rise; so that it is my labour, my diligence, and industry, that raiseth the tithe, and in my power it is to make it less, or more; and sometimes, yea, often it falls out, that the tithe of corn is thrice more worth than the yearly value of the land on which it grows; and herein tithe of corn is far more hard and unequal than personal tithes; for the one pays but the tenth, all charges deducted; the other pays the tenth of charges and all. Mine ancestor could not charge me with that which doth not accrue by reason of that which I have from him; nor am I bound, because mine ancestor left me land, to pay tithe, which [page 27] is not paid by reason of the land, but of the increase, unto which I am no more tied by law, than he is who hath increase without land. If I have land and no increase, I pay no tithes; if I have increase, though no land, I ought by law to pay tithes. If I husband my land, so that the increase of it is not to be severed, no tithe can be recovered of it; and, therefore, if I pasture my land, no tithe shall be paid for the grass, which is eaten unsevered, but only a rate-tithe for that which doth depasture on it; which makes it plain, that tithe is not paid by reason of the land, but of the stock; and in that also, it lies in my power to make the tithe much, little, or nothing; if I plough and sow corn, the tenth part of the increase is generally more worth than the land on which it grows, which comes not by the land which descends from the ancestor, but because of the increase, won by the great charge, industry, and labour of the husbandman. If I pasture my ground with sheep that yield a fleece, the tithe will be considerable, though not so much as by corn. If I pasture with cows or breeding cattle, a much less tithe is paid. And if I pasture with horses and barren cattle, a very small rate only is required, though in few places of the nation would that have been recovered in the times of the papacy. But if I plant wood, and let it stand for timber; or if I store my land with beasts, wherein there is no personal property, no tithe shall be paid. Or, if I let my land lie waste, (which may be supposed because it may be done) or will eat my meadow, or corn standing, no tithe can be required. All these instances manifest that tithe hath still relation to the stock and personal estate, and not to the land: and is paid by reason of the stock and not the land; and so no ancestor could lay and perpetuate such a charge as tithe upon it, nor could he bind his successors to it. If by my ancestor I am bound to pay tithes in consideration of the land which he leaves me, to what value must it be? I may yearly pay more than the land he leaves me is worth, if I keep it in tillage; and if I pasture it, I need not pay the twentieth part: have I not herein, without fraud to my ancestors, power to pay much or little?  How is this like a rent-charge certain, which is by some objected? If tithes were paid by reason of the land, surely there is most reason, that the tenth part of the grass renewing upon all pasture-grounds should be paid; for the land still brings that with it, and it is easily divideable by rent, or let by month. If another hath as good right to the tenth part of the increase as the owner hath to the nine, why can he not take it without the owner's setting it out, or recover it by action of debt or trespass? But it is clear, there is no title till it be set forth, and then if the owner carry it away, an action of trespass lies, because he had set it out, and given it to another, and so altered his property, as one man doth, by marking his cattle for another man; and therefore it is, [page 28] that the law which commands tithes, doth not give power to any to take the tithe, because he had no title, but enjoins the owner to set it forth, and so make it another's by his own consent.

            If any man claim tithes by my ancestor's gift, may I not ask him, To whom, and for what my ancestors gave them? And it is plain beyond denial, that all those gifts of lands or tithes in England, since Augustin the monk planted the Roman Catholic faith, and preached up the payment of tithes, were given to priests, for saying prayers for the souls of the givers, and their deceased ancestors, as old consecrations do witness: And therefore in reason, if the consideration and service be  ceased, so ought also the wages; for no man in law or equity, ought to claim wages when he will not do the work for which it was given; and seeing those priests and prayers are laid aside, the gift ought to return to the donor, and may not without his consent be perverted to another use.

            “Tithe was never claimed in respect of any ownership in the land, but ex debito, by the law of God, for substraction whereof, no remedy lay at the common law; and, therefore, if a parson let a lease of his glebe to another, with all the appurtenances, yet he himself shall have tithe of it.”—SHEPPERD.

            “Terra non sunt decimabiles; and, therefore, neither mines nor quarries of iron, brass, tin, lead, coals, stones, tile, brick, or lime, are titheable, nor houses, nor trees, nor grass, nor corn, till they be severed from the land, the real estate which  descends by inheritance from the ancestor, and made a distinct personal possession.”—COKE.

            And therefore tithe is not paid of land, nor by reason of the land, nor is it a charge upon land, like a rent-charge, nor was it ever so claimed, till of late.

            But some object and say, When I bought my land, I bought not the tithe, nor paid any thing for it.

            I answer, that I and all men bought all our land, and that without any charge of tithe upon it; and, therefore, in all conveyances it is still said, “All that, &c.” and never any covenant for, or exemption of a tenth part, either of land or increase; and to him that saith, the “seller or his ancestor, charged it with tithes as a rent,” I say, where a rent is charged, it is still expressed; and find any such exemption or covenant, and I will freely pay them as a just debt. And is it not ridiculous for any to talk of purchasing his tithe? for with his labour, charge, and husbandry, he pays dear enough for his whole increase.

            Another objects, That though I bought all my land, yet I bought it cheaper than I could have bought such land as was known to be tithe-free; and therefore having a cheaper bargain, I am bound in equity to pay tithes.

            I answer, that I have already proved all land is tithe-free, [page 29] and the charge of tithe is upon the stock and personal estate, and not upon the land. And the strength of this objection lies, in comparing those who pay tithes with those that are free; they that buy lands tithe-free, are eased of this oppression, and are in no hazard; and though all others ought to be so, yet it being a question, whether they can ease themselves of the burden, they buy under a hazard, and as subject to such a charge; but if they can cast off the yoke, they get but what is their own. And seeing we have denied the pope's authority and supremacy, we may so soon as we can, wholly cast off the burdens which he laid on us. And thus, he that buys lands in the years of trouble and heavy taxes, may perhaps buy much cheaper than when none, or little, is paid: Shall he therefore always be required to pay taxes when others are discharged? Or shall he that bought cheap land on the borders, between England and Scotland, when those parts were infested with mosse-troopers, always maintain, or pay tribute to thieves and robbers? We bought land when the pope's yoke was upon our necks, and if we cast it from us, we may, by as good reason, be eased of our tithes, as they are of their taxes. But if I bought cheaper, what is that to the state, or to a priest? If in equity I be bound to pay any more, it is most just, that he have it of whom I bought my land, and not another.

            There are others who plead a legal right by prescription, and that they have a good right, because they have so long possessed them.

            This was the old device, first to preach that tithes were due, and then to limit them to the parishes, and when forty years were past, to claim them as a debt, which before was paid as charity, or at most as a free-will offering of the owner. And thus the pope got first-fruits and tenths, and Peter-pence, and many great sums out of this and other nations, which long continued; and he might as well have pleaded his prescription, as any of his branches now can do. [In the reign of Henry III., the pope had above 120,000l. per annum, out of this nation, which was then more worth than the king's revenue.] But shall the continuance of an oppression give right to perpetuate the grievance? How many great and heavy pressures, in other things, did long lie on this nation, which still have been abolished, as light did increase; notwithstanding the usages and customs of former ages. But yet this is a great mistake, for by the common law no man can prescribe to have tithes, though many may prescribe to be free from tithes, or part thereof; for he that claims tithes (except impropriators, to whom I shall speak hereafter) must claim them as a parson, vicar, or other called ecclesiastic officer, and, as I have hinted before, he claims them not as such a person, but as such an officer, and the prescription  (if any were) is to his office. Now if no such office be in being, his claim is at an end: That there is now no such office is plain; for when Henry VIII. renounced the pope, he was declared by act of parliament to be the head of the church; and all archbishops, bishops, and all others in ecclesiastical orders, were no longer to hold of the pope, but of the king, and not to claim their benefices by title from the pope, but of the king, by virtue of that act of parliament. And here the succession from the pope was cut off; and the king, by his new authority as head of the church, made bishops, and gave them power to make parsons, vicars, and others called ecclesiastic officers. Afterwards, as the king renounced the pope, so the parliament of England laid aside kings, who had assumed the title and style of head of the church, and also abolished archbishops and bishops, and all their dependencies, root and branch: And here the whole ecclesiastic state was dissolved, and the body fell with the head, and the branches with the root; both parsons, vicars, and curates, and so all their right, title, and claim to tithes was at an end, as is more plainly, and fully, set forth in a late printed paper, by Jer. Benson, to which I refer.

            And now I come to the last, those that claim by purchase, and these are the impropriators, and they say, “They have bought them of the state, and have paid great sums of money for them, and many of them have no other subsistence.”

            To these I answer, That I have showed before, that in the root all tithe is alike, whether it be now claimed by a priest or an impropriator, and both must fall together. And seeing those that sold them had no good title, neither can theirs be made good which is derived from them. But seeing it was the state that sold them, and that the whole nation had the benefit of their moneys, it is equal and just, when they cannot have what is sold, that their moneys be repaid; to which point I shall speak more fully hereafter, in answer to an objection which I meet with in my way, needful to be resolved.

            And thus I have briefly gone over the whole matter, and considered what every one can say, by which it plainly appears that no man at this day can claim tithe of another, either by divine or human right; and that tithes are neither due by the express law of God, nor by the equity of that law; nor by the decrees of the church, nor grants of kings, nor laws of parliaments, nor gifts of the people, nor prescription of the possessors, nor the purchase of impropriators. -

            It now only remains, that I answer some general objections, which I shall do in as much brevity as I can, and so leave the whole to the reader. |

            The first is made by the state.

            The second by impropriators.

            And the third by parish ministers. [page 31]

            And all these together object and say, That though it should be granted, that the right of tithes cannot be proved, yet if it be found that taking them away will bring great loss to the public revenue, much damage, if not ruin, to many particular persons and families, and great hazard of bringing confusion to the nation, by such a great alteration, after so long a settlement, and endanger the very public profession of religion, by taking away ministers' maintenance, and consequently ministry itself; it is not prudence, for satisfying some, to bring so many and great inconveniences upon the nation.

            These objections plead not for the right of tithes, but against the removing of them, to prevent inconvenience; and if it be granted that tithes are an exaction and oppression, and neither due by the law of God nor man, such considerations as these ought not to obstruct the removal of so great a grievance, but that which is just ought to be done, for the general good to the whole body; and then such parts as are found oppressed, may be afterwards relieved; and even if these should in some measure suffer it were but just, seeing their compliance with the oppressor hath brought such a burden upon the whole body, and are now become the only obstructions of the general relief and freedom.

            And yet a few words I shall answer to every one separately, and first to the state, which complains of a great loss by taking away first-fruits and tenths, which are paid out of tithes.

            When the pope had established the payment of tithes, and set up a new hierarchy, after the pattern of the Jewish priesthood, (Ezek. xliv, 28, &c.) he took upon himself to be successor to the Jewish high-priest, and claimed tenths from all his inferior priests; and in process of time he got to himself, by the like colour, first-fruits also; and though it was long ere he brought his work to pass in England, yet at last it was effected: you may by these following instances know, how much our English nation struggled against them.

            The king forbade H. P., the pope's nuncio, to collect firstfruits, 2 Ed. III. Rol. Claus. M.

            The pope's collector, “was willed no longer to gather the first fruits, it being a very novelty, and no person was any longer to pay them.”

            The commons petition, “that provision may be made against the pope's collectors for levying of first-fruits.” 4 Par. 1, Ri, II. Nu. 66.

            The king in parliament answers, “There shall be granted a prohibition in all such cases, where the pope's collectors shall attempt any such novelties.” Rol. Parl. 4 R. II. Nu. 50.

            Upon complaint made by the commons in parliament, the [page 32] king willeth, “that prohibitions be granted to the pope's collectors, for receiving of first-fruits.” Rol. Parl. 6 R. II. Nu. 50.

            First-fruits, by archbishops and bishops to the pope, were termed “an horrible mischief, and damnable custom.” 6. H. IV.

            The pope's collectors “were required from thenceforth not to levy any money within the realm, for first-fruits.” Rol. Parl. 9 H. IV. N. 43.

            The pope thus claiming first-fruits and tenths as annexed to his chair, successor to the Jewish high-priest, and head of the church, continued to collect them, till Henry VIII., discontented with the pope, renounced the pope's supremacy, and assumed it to himself; and by act of parliament, in the twenty-sixth year of his reign, got first-fruits and tenths annexed to his crown, as head of the church; and so himself became worse than the pope, taking the wages, but not doing the pope's work: and that which before by parliaments, under the papacy, was declared as a damnable custom, was now, in the beginning of reformation, made a foundation-stone to support the greatness of the new-made head. - -

            Afterwards, queen Mary, not daring to assume the headship of the church, did relinquish, and by act of parliament, wholly took away first-fruits and tenths, she doing no work to deserve  such wages. And what a shame is this to our nation, after so  long talk of reformation, now to plead for such wages, first exacted by the pope, and then by such as assumed to themselves  the style of head of the church, who upon that very account had them annexed to the crown? And shall we now, who pretend to have cast off the pope, uphold such oppressions. For the pretence of paying tenths is the ground of the many suits for tithes in the Exchequer, where otherwise by law they could not, nor ought to be recovered. And as to the public revenue, I am informed they add not much thereto, but all, or a great part of them, are given in augmentations to priests; though I know, many of them, not long since, complained against them as a popish oppression. But take away tithes, and there are as many glebe lands will fall to the state, as will fully make up that loss, which they may as well take away, as their predecessors did the revenues of abbeys and monasteries; and when the people are eased of tithes, they will be better able, and more willing, to enlarge the public treasury, if it be found wanting.

            But it is hoped, our state rather looks at the freedom of the people than the increase of the revenue; seeing so lately they took away the profits of the Court of Wards, which was a much better income, and granted many great men such freedom for nothing, as they could neither in right claim, nor in reason expect; and surely, they will not deny the poorer sort of people their own and dear-bought increase. [page 33]

Secondly, To impropriators, and such as have more lately bought tithe-rents.

            And to these I say, though it be a general rule, caveat emptor, yet seeing the ignorance of former days, did take it for granted, both buyer and seller, that the title was good; and since the purchasers did pay great sums of money for them to the state, which went to defray the public charge of the nation, it is just that they have a moderate price for them, with which I believe most of them would be well pleased and content; only in the estimate of that rate they must consider, that they have bought no more, but what the abbey, monastery, or other dissolved house had; and these houses, out of their appropriate tithes, were to find a sufficient priest or curate, canonically instituted, which was to have allowance at the discretion of the bishop of the diocese, and also a convenient portion of the tithe was to be set apart for the yearly maintenance of the poor of the parish for ever, as is provided by divers acts of parliament. And after the dissolution and sale of tithes, the like charge was, and ought to be continued upon them, as at large is proved in a treatise called “The Poor Vicar's Plea;” and let but such purchasers look to their original grants, and they shall find that the yearly value was but little, and the rate small, after which they paid for them; and in regard of the charges and hazards upon them, they were seldom, or never esteemed more worth than ten years' purchase, and that rate, at a moderate yearly value, may well be accepted for them.

            This answer will please the impropriator well, who hath not been without his fears to lose his tithes, and get little or nothing for them; and it cannot much displease others, because it is equal and just, that seeing he cannot have what is bought, he may have his money returned.

            But the great difficulty seems, the raising of so great a sum of money, and who is to pay it?   For, first, there are many who plead, Our lands are wholly tithe free: others say, “We pay a rate, or small prescription-rate, or have a modus decimandi, and our tithe is very small, though our lands be of good value:” others say, “We have converted our lands into pastures, and pay little tithe; and therefore it seems not equal, that we should pay as much as those, whose lands consist of tillage, whose tithes are often as much worth as the land.”

            I answer, That the raising of this sum, is not to follow the rate of tithe, nor hath it any relation to tithe; for if it had, many would as justly scruple the payment of anything towards it, as they do the payment of tithes; but the case must be thus considered: at the dissolution, tithes of abbeys, monasteries, &c., [page 34] were taken into the hands of the state, they sold them, and the money raised went to defray the great charge then upon the nation, as it was of late in our days, when tithe-rents were sold; and at that day, there were wars with France and Scotland, and many great exigencies of state, as the statutes for the dissolution show; and in the service and use of these moneys, the whole nation, and every man therein, had his share, and so far as those moneys went, the people were spared, as the case was with us of late; and so he that had land tithe-free, and he that paid only a small rate for tithes, and he that had pastures and no tillage, all these shared in the sum, yea, and the very impropriator| himself, and not according to the proportion of tithing, but according to the value of their estates in lands or goods, and by which they had been otherwise chargeable; and so the impropriator depositing so much money upon a pledge, the one being  required, the other must be returned, and by a general tax it must be raised, wherein every one must bear his proportion, the very impropriator himself.

            But then in comes he that bought the lands of abbeys, &c., which, he saith, the pope had made tithe-free, and that when he bought his land, he also paid for the tithe, and so he must either be freed from paying to the impropriator, or must have his money returned as well as he.

            I answer, Though there are many such purchasers, yet I believe, to the freeing the nation from this great and long-continued oppression, they, or most part of them, would be content to contribute without any such demand. But if any stand upon it, let him show what he paid for his tithe, and he shall have it, which was not a penny; for, search the Court of Augmentations, and it will be found, that there was not in the value of land, the least difference made between tithe-free, and that which paid tithes; as there was not of late, in the sale of bishops', and dean and chapters’ lands, many of which also were as much tithe-free; and so if they bought land tithe-free, as cheap as if they had paid tithes, they have had profit enough, and may now well afford to pay with their neighbours.

Thirdly, To parish ministers.

And with these I desire a little to expostulate, both as touching the end of their work; and as to the way of their maintenance. Their work, as they profess, is to preach the Gospel, and to propagate religion. Now I would ask them, why they suffer not only villages, country towns, and parishes, but even great and populous cities and market towns, and whole corners of counties, to lie destitute, who never could get any other minister, than a poor vicar or reading curate; they will presently answer me, There is no maintenance, and without that they cannot live. [page 35] If I ask them further, why there is no maintenance? they will tell me, it is either a city or market town, to which there belongs no land, and so no tithes; or it is an impropriation and pays only a small stipend; or the lands are tithe-free, or claim customs and prescriptions, and only pay small rates for tithes; or otherwise the people have converted their arable lands into pastures, and their tithe is of small value, and will not afford a maintenance. I would yet ask them again, Is not a third part of the nation in this condition? And must they never have an able minister? Have they no share in your Gospel, because they have no maintenance? Are none of you called to such places? or hath Christ no seed of election amongst them? If this be not your doctrine, yet your practice preacheth it. And if you were really for spreading the Gospel, you would forthwith throw up your tithes; for so long as they continue, there can never be any possibility of raising maintenance in such places.

            And secondly, as to their maintenance; is their any indifferency, equality, proportion, or justice in their present way of tithing? One man pleads he is to pay nothing to a minister, because the pope hath given him a dispensation, and made his land tithe-free. Another man saith, he hath a prescription to pay but a penny (it may be) for the value of a shilling. Another saith he hath converted his lands into pastures, and hath by his artifice so ordered it, that little is due for tithes. Another saith, he dwells in a city or market town, and hath no land, though it is like he gains more by trade, than ten poor countrymen that pay tithes do by their lands. Another saith, he pays tithe to an impropriator, and he cannot afford to pay both him and a minister. Is this your equal way of maintenance, and have you not a more righteous rule?  The rich pay little, and the poor husbandman bears the burden, even he that supplies the nation with bread, who is, notwithstanding, at more charge in his husbandry than any other; and out of the tithes of such country parishes of tillage, great sums are often paid for augmentations, to cities and market towns, when the inhabitants, that have far greater gains by trading go free. Be persuaded, then, to follow the example of your neighbouring reformed churches, and throw up tithes as a relic of popery; and betake yourselves to a more Gospel-like way of maintenance.

            It is like you will answer, -- We confess, the present way of a maintenance by tithes is very unequal, unless the whole nation could be brought to quit all their customs and prescriptions, and pay tithe in kind; and also all merchants and tradesmen would pay the tenth part of their gains, as was by the pope enjoined, but that will never be done, and therefore it is better to hold some, than lose all; for we know not what better way would be provided: but show us how we may have a comfortable [page 36] and certain maintenance, and more like the Gospel, and we shall most willingly quit the one and embrace the other.

            To this I answer, that there is a way, which, as it would establish the nation upon a sure foundation of true freedom, as to conscience, and give content to all separated congregations, societies, and persons; so would it upon the same basis of liberty, hold forth full satisfaction to all people of the nation, both as to ministry and maintenance, and would be as acceptable to every one, as the taking away tithes. But I have said enough at once, and when this is a little digested, the other will be more fit to be proposed.

            Only to such as fear confusion, or trouble, or loss to the nation, by taking away tithes, I would say a few words: Do but look into almost every country town, and there shall you find debate, strife, and variance, either between man and man, or between parishes and their ministers, either about tithe itself, the quantity, or the setting it out; look into courts, and there you shall find suit upon suit; and at assizes and before justices of peace, multitudes of trials and judgments about them: Look into prisons, and there you shall find not a few restrained, and lying under great oppressions, because they cannot pay them: And these suits and troubles are daily increasing, and these are no small confusions in our state: for it is evident, there are more differences about tithes, than any one thing whatsoever in the nation; and how soon might all these be ended, and every one satisfied, by taking away tithes? And then do but look upon the many moors, commons, and wastes in the nation, amounting to a full third part of the whole, as hath been computed, to the many counties which are turned into pastures and meadows, because of the unreasonable payment of a clear tenth part, which in most places is half the profit; and it will be found, nothing does so much hinder the improvement of the nation, which would ease the public burdens, and would soon be of more advantage than first-fruits and tenths.  Nothing so much hinders tillage, and forceth us to seek bread out of other countries; whereas this nation is generally so fit for corn, that it might be as a rich granary, not only for our own supply, but the relief of our neighbours. I might say a great deal more upon this subject, but much to this purpose hath been said by others, and therefore I shall conclude. And let no man henceforth think it strange, that any should refuse to pay tithes; but rather wonder, that any will pay them.

END.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Printed by E. Couchman, 10. Throgmorton Street, London.