Selected quad for the lemma: master_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
master_n	john_n	thomas_n	william_n	31,890	5	9.1985	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A17985	Tithes examined and proued to bee due to the clergie by a diuine right VVhereby the contentious and prophane atheists, as also the dissembling hypocrites of this age, may learne to honour the ministers and not to defraude them, and to rob the Church. The contents heereof is set downe in the page next following. Written by George Carleton Batchelour in Diuinitie.	Carleton, George, 1559-1628.	1606 (1606)	STC 4644; ESTC S107556	55,614	94

almes and that the Ministers of the word haue right to nothing but should liue in high pouertie This opinion seemeth first to be brought by those who were called Waldenses vpon the abuse of Tithes which they saw vnder the Church of Rome It is recorded an opinion of theirs by a writer whose name is not expressed in the last aedition of Catalogus testium veritatis tom 2. lib. 15. This opinion Iohn Wiclif and his schollers receiued from them as he receiued matters of greater importance It is recorded the opinion of Iohn Wiclif by one Thomas Waldensis And among those articles of Iohn Wiclif condemned by the counsell of Constaunce this is one Art 18. Wiclifes Schollers held the same Iohn Hus a Bohemian William Thorp an Englishman as appeareth by their examinations recorded by maister Fox The same opinion hath beene since taught by Anabaptists and Trinitaries as may be seene in a booke de antithesibus veri falsi Christi Anno Dom. 1568. Albae Iuliae The second opinion is that Tithes are not due by Gods law that is a determinate quantitie is not prescribed in the word but onely as these men say a reasonable or competent maintenance is inioyned This is the opinion of them of the Church of Rome as Bellarmin declareth the same is much receiued among our latter writers of the reformed Churches which onely shew of a generall approbation in this opinion hath forced me many times I confesse to lay aside my pen thinking it much more safe to erre with this approbation then to striue for the truth against such a streame of gainesayers For I will not thincke that of our men who haue laboured in reformed Churches which others might say that they haue denied Tithes to be due to the Church vpon a detestation of popery wherein tithes were so much abused but this I thinke that they intending greater points of doctrine suffered this to lye lesse regarded and in a manner forgotten as a thing not altogether so necessary as those other points wherein they made especiall choise to labour Then the reuerend regard of their names their persons their labours being remooued from this question we take this opinion vnsound and of lesse probabilitie then the former The third is that tithes are due to the Ministers of the Church by the expresse word of God This is the iudgement of the auncient fathers from the beginning without crose or contradiction vntill the supreame authoritie of the bishop of Rome tooke them away by the meanes of impropriations This is the conclusion which we purpose heere God willing to confirme First we will refute the two former opinions then open the story of Tithes and confirme the point in question last wee will aunswere obiections The first opinion that tithes are almes implyeth also those seuerall braunches which Bellarmine for inlarging controuersies maketh seuerall questions or questionable errors That they are not to be payed to euill Ministers and that all ministers must resolue to liue in high pouerty as it was tearmed This opinion is thus ouerthrowen by the words of the Apostle Who goeth to warfare at any time at his owne cost who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit therof or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milke of the flocke The reason stands thus if he that goeth to warfare may of duty chalenge his wages of the people for whom he fighteth or he that planteth a vineyard may of duety challenge to eate thereof or hee who feedeth a flock may of duty challenge to eate of the milke of the flock then the Minister fighting for the people against their spirituall aduersaries planting a vineyard among them feeding a flock in feeding them may challenge of duty his reliefe not beg it as almes but the first is true therefore the second Out of which reason of the Apostle drawen from these examples it appeareth farther that by the law of nature the teachers are prouided for because by the law of nature he who goeth to warfare must bee prouided for by them who set him to that seruice by the law of nature hee who planteth a vineyard eateth of the fruit by the same law hee who feedeth a flock eateth of the milke If it bee said that almes are also to be giuen by the law of nature for answere wee must obserue this distinction betwene almes and that thing for which the Apostle heere pleadeth If almes be not giuen it is a breach of charitie but if this bee denied of which the Apostle speaketh it is a breach of iustice For as it is iniustice to denie wages to him whom you appoint to fight for you or to debarre a man from the fruit of that vineyard which he planteth or to denie him the milke of a flock which he feedeth so is it in like manner iniustice to denie the Minister that maintenance for which the Apostle pleadeth Now if it bee iniustice to denie the ministers maintenance then he hath a right and part in the goods of those whom hee teacheth for iustice giueth to euery man his owne and not one mans right to another whereby it is euident that the Minister hath a part and right in their goods whom he teacheth Now to take this is not to take almes but to take his owne So then by this reason almes are assuredly ouerthrowen because almes are not of duty and iustice to bee challenged as these things are therefore the Ministers maintenance standeth not by almes but by iustice as the souldiers wages stand not by almes but by iustice as by iustice not by almes a man may eate the fruit of a vineyard which he planteth or of the milke of his flock The same is confirmed by those words The labourer is worthy of his wages No man saith the begger is worthy of almes Now he that saith the labourer is worthy of his wages sayth that of iustice hee may challenge it not beg it as almes for in as much as it is wages it is due by iustice but no almes are due by iustice for so should we take away all difference betweene iustice and charitie therefore if almes no wages if wages no almes The second opinion faith not tithes but a competent maintenance is due by Gods law and this is vrged to be most agreeable to the Apostles times the words are onely altered otherwise this is the same with the former that saith that tithes are meer almes for this opinion bringeth in with it these consequences first that tithes as tithes are almes for he that denieth that they are to be payed of duty and iustice proueth them almes secondly that ministers may not claime any thing out of Gods word and this also proueth almes For he that saith to his parishoner tithes I cannot claim and therfore no certaine thing out of the word yet somewhat in conscience you should contribute vnto me what doth he else but leaue it to the choise