suppose you will not affirm that Mens charity was the first or principal moving cause or do you mean that the freewil of man in this business of tythes preceded that command of God as a cause the effect or that posito Dei mandato man did yield a free and chearful obedience in paying tythes as God had commanded Which voluntary act was as Pauls preaching of the Gospel such as that wo had been to him if he had not done it Express your terms and sense and let us have no after-reckonings We know that Gods Children yield a chearful and a voluntary obedience they do their duty commanded not moillingly grudgingly or of necessity and 2 Cor. 9 7. 1 Pet. 5.2 1 Cor 9.17 that God loves and rewards chearful obedience and such are all acts of true Religion voluntary not compulsory the Spirit of God making us willing of unwilling so carrying about our wills and affections as Astronomers say the primum mobile doth the inferior orbs of Heaven in their Diurnal motion from East to West contrary to their Natural motion yet by an admirable influence Citra violentiam So we can admit tythes paid by Gods servants to be a free-will offering respectu offerentis but not ex parte praecipientis as if man instituted and paid them without Gods Command for the same and as if they were works of Supererogation We know that in every good which we do God worketh both velle perficere Phil. 2. we acknowledg that they are not rightly performed by any pure Naturals of man but of Gods free Grace both Jubentis quod vult praestantis quod jubet So Israel brought a willing Offering unto the Lord every man and woman whose heart made them willing to bring for all manner of work Exod 35.29 which the Lord had commanded to be made by the hands of Moses But our Adversaries would fain have it that Tythes were but as some votive Obligation of the Owners which they needed not to have dedicated or paid except themselves pleased This is the Witchess Herodias which they so ambitiously pursue that they might once conclude an Arbitrary maintenance for Ministers and do but mark the Circle to which this mole is Conjured Fain would they have Gods Ordinance undermined and dissolved into such Imaginary Principles as might bear this castle in the Air that Tythes should henceforth be only what men in Charity and Free-will would give their Ministers Thank you for you kindness gentle Sir but get you Alms-men where you will we are none of them The Papist hath too much advantage already in their large maintenance open Presses for their Students Works liberal Contributions for any advancement of his Cause while our Presses are too much shut to good Studies Contributions rare is Honesty and if the Jesuite could but yet more discourage us by taking away the remainder of Ministers necessary maintenance by Tythes his work were done and England undone To the reverend Ministers I entreat leave to say If they be Prophets and if the Word of the Lord be with them let them now make Intercession to the Lord of Hosts Isai 27.18 that the Vessels which are left in the house of the Lord go not to Babylon And now limit them that is Tythes to Parishes c. That which you speak Page 30. may pass muster among your Impertinences as to the present question concerning Parishes I have already spoken Gen. 14.18 here I only add 1. That the first place of Scripture mentioning a Priest mentioneth Tythes paid unto him 2. The first place also wherein House of God Gen. 28. â—8 â—2 or Church is spoken of there also are Tythes the maintenance of the Priest-hood vowed to God as some note by that name whereby Parish-Churches were anciently called that is tituli lapis iste quem posui in titulum erit Domus Dei So Damasus in the life of Evaristus Bishop of Rome Anno 112. saith hic titulos in Urbe Roma divisit Presbyteris Platins vit Evaâ—ist Onuthrius compuâ—eth Anno 96. Concil To. 1. Pag. 106. eâ—i 1606. And the Nicen Council c. 21 mentionth Parishes as Carraza reciteth the Canons thereof out of the second Epistle of Julius So that by those divisions the Congregations were assigned to such and such Churches and the Tythes thence arising belonged to the Ministers there serving as hath been noted from Gal. 6.6 what the Popes you speak of got of first-fruits impropriate Tythes c. is a loss to our Clergy and therefore not advisedly urged by you against them That which you further say that No man can prescribe to have Tythes c. Were somthing against those who make prescription the ground of their claim which concerns us not who claim from divine donation Again you say many may prescribe to be free from Tyithes or part thereof Consider of what value prescription can be against Gods unchangeable moral Law and your second thoughts will tell you that antiquity of error can never make any good Prescription Christ yielded the Pharisaical glosses antiquity on their side Math. 5.21 c. ye have heard of old time that it was said by or to them c. which he presently corrected with his but I say unto you c. The rest of your following discourse savoureth strongly of your siding with the Popish party as your stomaking the Title of the head of the Church which we understand to be the supream Governor under God of inchurched men neither is this as you say here The Kings new Authority as the head of the Church For what say we more therein than Tertullian many hundred years since said We honor saith he the Emperor as we ought Vt hominem a Deo secundum solo Deo minorem Sic enim omnibus major est dum solo vero Deo minor est In Scap. c. 2. I conceive that you are not to learn that Caput importeth a Chief First or Principal But you say That all Arch-Bishops Bishops c. were no longer to hold of the Pope Page 30. but of the King and not to claim their benefices by Title from the Pope but of the King by vertue of that Act of Parliament and here the succession from the Pope was cut off and discontinued c. A grief to all good hearts think the Papists But why should this trouble you if you be none of them What is this to us who acknowledg neither dependance on nor Succession from the Pope You say more And so all their Right Title and Claim was and is at an end What because the Popes donation is at an end must Gods also be involved in the same ruin How will that conclusion follow The abuse and usurpation is taken away ergo the right use and just possession must down Are Gods Laws grounded on the Popes Decrees and Grants I never yet heard that claimed by any of you And what wilde Logick stands your discourse
commands what was before Herein you say true For God gave them from the beginning and man confirmed them in sundry times following Next you demand how Laws of Kings and Parliaments c. binde the Conscience Your self have formerly answered but the Apostle more definitively saith Rom. 13.1 5. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers Ye must be subject needs be subject not onely for wrath but also for conscience sake 1 Pet. 2.13 And St. Peter Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake And will this double band hold Samson if it doth sin not against Conscience Satan-like endeavoring to seduce others and draw them in society of sin Pag. 23. Tythes you say be not due by the Law of God This is a shameless begging of the question which will never be approved by us or proved by you But you say Who hath set them up the Law of man at best Here is another begging of the question at another door as also in the following words where you say in the place where God disanulled his own command We offer here again to joyn issue with you and challenge you to shew us any one Text of Gods Word whereby it appears that God ever disanulled or repealed his Law of Tything For the rest if you could cite and urge as many Decrees of Princes or Acts of Parliaments against us as you have cited for Tythes yet no Decrees of men can Impeach our Right therein seeing God by the Magna Charta of his holy Word hath setled it for an Inheritance upon the Ministry You demand Who put this power into the hand of man Pag. 23. to raise a compulsory maintenance for Ministers The Apostle will tell you Rom. 13.4 The Magistrate is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath on him that doth evil Is not execution of wrath a compulsory means think you Or is not Sacriledg evil in your Theology That you further say that the Ministers of Christ never lookt for or durst own such a way of provision We say First That the maintenance of Ministers ought to be willingly aforded them not grudgingly or sparingly as also their ministration this is as to the first intention of the Law but if men will be obstinate Compulsion is a second intention hereof Secondly Suppose that Ministers did not own such a way of provision for recovery of Tythes before such Acts of Parliament were made for them What hindereth but that they may justly use such Laws now Enacted and in Force You proceed What Nation in Europe will not say they have a Christian Magistracy Do you not forget how great a part of Europe is under the Turk Your many following impertinences should have had no answer but that you say heavy punishments are inflicted upon such as cannot for conscience sake conform unto them To which I say it was never well since mens Consciences were tied to their Purse-strings and that opinions not so much as probable must go for Conscience Shew us Gods Word for your Conscience and we will submit to the same bond but we think it an abominable Idolatry to set up opinions of beguiled Men instead of Gods sacred Oracles Concerning This day of clear and Sunshine light We say Isai 8.20 to the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them To this Law we appeal and willingly submit Doth this savor in you tender sensory of the old Popish Spirit Who sees not your endeavour to re-establish Popery though you so much seem to speak against it And now let me bonâ cum veniâ tel you that either your hypocrisie or ignorance is somthing gross And is this as you say a shame to our reformation Or is the practise of you deformers a shame to Christian Religion It is probable that you carry on the Jesuits design of reducing England to darkness of Popery again by decrying Ministers right to a setled maintenance that by taking them away you may remove the Candlestick out of his place the light of the Gospel from us and then you may possibly bring many to Popery and Atheism I must needs say that this personated Zelote speaks much against Popery but works what he can for it on whom I look as on Thames-water-men with their faces one way but labouring might and main to carry their Passengers and Vessel another You add Were the Law just commanding Tythes c. What will he not question Pag. 24. who doubteth of the equity of the Law I hope you mean humane Law which yet is founded on Gods Law and have you not learned of Socrates to doubt of all things Concerning treble damages or other punishments which the Law hath appointed obstinate transgressors I suppose you know that the plaintifs charges of the Suit commonly exceed the dammage justly awarded him towards his reparation therein so that even under the tender hands of just Judges the remedy is more burdensome than the disease these punishments therefore are but just What injustice is it think you to force a Thief or Possessor malae fidei to restore the goods of another man which he hath injuriously possessed himself of and still deteineth What injustice can be in a legal reinvesting the true owner And in case that the iniurious refuse to submit to the Law to compel him by some severe punishment by Law provided in such case And if this be justice in one case Why shall it not be so in another kind of wrong or robberry Why not in case of Sacriledg the worst of robberies if in inferior thieveries O but you say our consciences tell us that detention of Tythes from Mininisters is no sin What if a Thieves Conscience as you account Conscience should tell him that had robbed you that stealing is no sin Would you not pursue him and prosecute law against him I doubt in your next scruple your weak and tender Consciences will tell you that 't is a sin to pay your Land-lords any Rent or at least their sin to Distrain or Sue for any though you can but will not for your Conscience sake forsooth pay him any And will not the next question in your Schools be whether it be lawful In foro Conscientiae to pay any Debt To set out Tythes c. You say this is against his Conscience once again we require you to shew us any one Text of Scripture prohibiting seting out of Tythes that we may know that it is Conscience and not Opinion grounded on humane fancy malice greedy desire of enriching your selves by pillaging the Ministers which moveth you to think so You say This age so much pretends to reformation and every one cries wo wo and he complain's that help 's to make it so Are you not a chief pretender to Reformation Why then trouble you the sacred peace of the Church And truly I fear that it will come to pass
you have so pillaged them that you have scarce left themselves bread You say farther not any Councels that expresly supposed them a duty of common right before the Councel of Lateran held in the year 1215. Were this so much as probable it would condemn the Christian world and the Prelates of much defect herein We are too sure that many are faulty herein now because Satan hath blinded the minds of many and stirred up sundry impostors to write and speak against the ordinance of God for support of the Ministry his design being to steal away the oyl from the Tabernacle lamps that their light failing his Kingdome of darkness may be advanced but if now Governors should set out some more strict decrees for Ministers more easie recovery of their Tythes then formerly have been seeing the apostacy of so many sectaries would those decrees be any proof in future ages that Tythes were never supposed a duty of common right before the year 1659. or some following time Yet you say were they free to dispose them were they pleased until the Popish Councels restrained their liberty Say now bona fide were Tythes due to Priests and Levites under the Law or Ministers of the Gospel ever free to be disposed of by the people in a setled state of any Church constituted where the people pleased If you mean tenths for the poor they are out of the verge of this present controversie and so you trifle If you mean Tythes for Ministers and maintenance of Gods service we justly require your proof we know that under the law God never allowed any such liberty to his people neither can it appear in the Gospel that ever he left the Ministers thereof to a less certain and determinate maintenance then he did the Priests and Levites here now being the Ministry of a more excellent Testament established upon better promises and how else did Paul avow his power therein 1 Cor. 9. however in those times of the Churches troubles he used it not You say farther The old Roman doctrine that Tythes ought to be paid And was the law for paying Tythes old Roman doctrine Was Moses a Roman Or was Christ a Roman who allowed the same in the Pharisees practise But to take your meaning with favourable interpretation of unadvised words I must put you in mind that the old Roman doctrine was pure Rom. 1.8 when S. Paul commended their faith and so it continued unto their latter apostacy I so much reverence antiquity as to avow that quod antiquissimum verissimum To your following Allegations I say what laws and canons for Tythes among the Saxons determined doth not prove that Tythes are not due to Ministers by divine right And as to the rest I say if they made laws to bind the people to obey Gods moral Law they did well therein and concerning the people so bound it is pity that they as we now needed such coercive laws to restrain their Sacriledge To that which you say pag. 10. That notwithstanding the many Laws Canons and Decrees of Kings it was left to the owner to confer it where he pleased We answer to these tautologies if they were true that is no wonder if there was no absolute reformation at once specially there where the peoples great Diana secular interest hath a part But now consider Of what strength is your argument à facto ad jus faciendi They did say you leave it to the owner to confer it where he pleased ergo it was just and lawfull so to do that consequence will appear notoriously faulty in other instances For example The people of Judah built them High places and Images and Groves on every high hill yea 1 King 14.23 in Asa's good reign The high places were not removed 1 King 15.14 In that miscellanie of Religion 2 King 17.29.32 to which may be added our modern confusion Every Nation made Gods of their own and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had made c. and made unto themselves of the lowest of them Priests of the high places So Jeroboam made Priests of the lowest of the people 2 Chro. 33.17 which were not of the sons of Levi whosoever would he consecrated him 1 King 12.31 and he became one of the Priests of the high places And this became a sin to the house of Jeroboam even to cut it off he made him Priests for the Devils and for the Calves which he had made 2 Chron. 11.15 Under him the people fell to Idolatry their fact concluded it not just and in the Prophet Malachies time the people did not pay their Tythes and Offerings Did that exempt them from the curse Mal. 3. because there were multitudes of offenders No no it brought it upon the whole Nation no examples of multitudes shall excuse Sacriledge And Parishes you say are but of late erection What would not he make his ignorant Reader swallow Page 10. Damasus speaking of Dionysius who lived about the year 260. saith Presbyteris Ecclesias divisit caemiteria parochiasque dioeceses constituit he distributed unto Priests Churches and Church-yards and appointed Parishes and Dioceses Vit. Pontif. Dionys init So also Platina in the life of Dionysius testifieth in the 2d Councel of Carthage the argument of the 11 Canon is Bin. Concil To. 1. Vt nullus parochiam alienam praesumat invadere That no man should presume to invade anothers Parish which Councel though but Provincial was confirmed by a general Councel in Trullo Câ—rranz sum concil this was held in Cyprians time that ancient Martyr In the decrees of Urban in the year 230. it is said of lands dedicated and given to the Church ipsae verores inditione singularum parochiarum c. In the Ancyran Councel Ib. Carran held about the year 308. approved by the Necene it was decreed that Bishops and their Ministers should endeavour utterly to root out that devillish invention and art of sortiledge è parochiis suis Ib. Carran pag. 157. In the 3 Canon of the Councel of Antioch we read thus Si quis presbyter aut diaconus aut omnino quilibet ex Clero parochiam propriam derens vel omnino demigrans in alia parochia c. This Councel was approved in the sixt general Councel of Constantinople In the Councel of Sardis it was ordained Canon 18.19 That no Bishop should ordain a Minister ex aliâ parochiâ without the consent of his Bishop In the Laodicean Councel Canon 14. see the like It were easie to weary the Reader with such proofs And is not it a notorious falshood to say that Parishes are but of late erection One thing is here considerable that when there were but few Christians Parishes were of much greater circuit of land then since the more abundant plantation of the Gospel wherein for the ease and accommodation of Parishioners many Chappels of ease erected have since by Acts of
Parliaments been made Parish Churches subject to the Bishops and their Diocesses Pag. 11. The people you say then generally being Papists did yield their obedience Yet that God had ever some good corne among those tares I conceive you have so much faith to believe if you believe that he had in all ages a Catholick Church though possibly you have not so much Charity as to confess that he had such excellent Saints then as are among you now in this last and worst of ages You say What before was owned for a gift was now claimed as a debt Shew if you are a true man who ever owned it as a gift or free benevolence of men except those who knew not or would not acknowledge the divine institution of Tythes we own them as Gods gift and therefore as mans due to be paid unto us God made us not your almes-men but in things spiritual our peoples rulers Heb. 13.7 17. watchmen and guides set over them in the Lord. 1 Thes 5.12 And so not to live of your benevolence but duty as spiritual Parents and shew if you can why that duty should be less determinate and certain then it was under the law to Priests and Levites that he ever reserved out of the rest which he gave to Israel to himself and to his service never leaving it arbitrary to mans will or wisdom to appoint no not to Moses himself And how prove you that he leaves us to your will and charity now All acknowledg a Law for paying Tythes to those who serve about holy things shew us in any one Text of the Old or New Testament where that law is repealed or the whole of Ministers maintenance left to the peoples pleasure Seeing you say themselves in a snare To you it seems that the ordinance of God is a snare this discovereth your dangerous condi ion and is an impious expression Again you say The Pope hath been imperious or in a great heigth of pride What is that to us If so it was his sin for which he is responsible to God who can make wicked men instrumental to some eminent good as in the example of Judas as to the passion of Christ for our Redemption and Salvation appeareth to whom we may add the rest who did therein that which the hand and Councel of God determined before to be done And who can deny but that he might also work good by the Popes commanding Tythes to be paid for the support of the preaching of the Gospel to the then living elect the powerfull instrument of Salvation however it proved a savour of death to many possibly of those that preached it but obeyed it not Next you trouble your readers about Canon-laws and Parochial payment of Tythes setled What suppose you that no good could be professed done or setled in that time wherein error and wickedness had miserably overspread a Church I suppose you will not on second thoughts conclude so when you mind not the propagation of the Gospel in Israel when the Jews Princes Priests and people generally persecuted the faith of Christ Next you talk of the poor Pag. 11. For whose sakes you say Tythes were chiefly given If you mean that these specified Parliaments did settle Tythes chiefly for the relief of the poor you do but trifle knowing that Tythes were anciently appointed for several uses 1. Ornament of Churches 2. For the poor 3. For love Feasts 4. For Ministers maintenance What ever Parliaments enacted must be judged by Gods laws human law is to our duty à mensura mensuraâ—â— Ã lege divina â—ae q. 19. whose end is the utility of men therefore to that supream power and justice must we look and in that rest So that this your argument is childish and impertinent except you could shew that we take human Laws and Statutes of Parliaments to be the ground of our right to Tythes we say after that ancient Councel of Matiscon forecited God hath appointed them for our inheritance or hereditary portion You say moreover He that did not pay no great punishment could they inflict on him but excommunication You mean I suppose that men could not you cannot be ignorant of the power of God to punish the Sacrilegious who hath denounced the curse on them Mal. 3. but was excommunication no great punishment 1. Cor. 5. in the Apostles sence delivering to Satan Possibly you account this punishment the less because herein the sacrilegious were but delivered to their own Master As for the exemptions you mention we dislike them as well as you as little to your purpose is that which you say in your following censure of Popish imitation of Jews l. 1. c. 7. c. 8. c. ib. c. 4. c. which as to those rites which your Durand citeth in his Rationale we utterly dislike But you say Henry 8. being a Papist c. One thing is remarkable you use to call all Popery which suits not with your fancy If Henry 8. did any thing according to Gods Will and Word that is no more Popish than that was Devillish which the Devil said Mar. 5.7 Henry 8. was a Papist and he made a Law that every man should set out his Tythes What is the conclusion yon drive to ergo paying of those duties is Popish Poor Sophistry You are not ignorant that this were a Sophism Non causae pro causâ His being a Papist was not the cause of his making that law for Tythes but as your self confess because he believed that Tythes were due to God and his holy Church In that you call that the Popes doctrine which by your own party is confessed to be grounded on the Law of God you commend the Popes Doctrine though with an intent to calumniate ours And you say First of our Parliament laws for Tythes Pag. 12. and that upon which the rest are grounded Here is another notorious untruth Was our Henry 8. before Athelston who reigned in this land about the year of our Lord 924 Would you have your readers believe that Henry 8. made a Law about 600 years before he was born and crowned King Was he King of this land before Edgar living about the year 959 or before Canutus who reigned here about An. 1016 or William the Conquerer Henry 1 Henry 2. Henry 3. Hist of Tythes c. 8. by William Selden cited as Law-makers for the payment of Tythes to the Ministers One thing out of the learned S. H. Spelman I desire the Reader to consider King Henry 3. Large work of Tythes saith he In the 9th year of his reign by that sacred Charter made in the name of himself and his heires for ever granted all this anew unto God We have granted saith he unto God and by this our present Charter have confirmed for us and for our heirs for evermore that the Church of England shall be free and shall have all her holy rites inviolable Magna c. 1.
which but seems so unto deluded mindes but Conscience on the infallible Word of God in which can be no falshood Shew us now if you be true men that this is indeed your Conscience and we will go along with you But excuse us if we subscribe not unto such dull and stupid opinions for which you cannot shew that Christs Ministers were ever in your sense made manifest But you would have Magistrates punish and restrain the evil We wish it so but doubt that you would wince when you were under the lash for Sacriledge and your Opinion could not save your You say Would not this ease the Magistrate and be more acceptable to God To so impious and vain a question it is enough to answer No. Who say you made him a Judge c He or they who made him a Magistrate and a restrainer of the evil Pag. 20. A third sort you say plead for Decrees c. I am loath to be expensive of precious time in examination of that which others plead and I content me to say concerning the rubbish which you here scrape together That those things have been sufficiently answered by the learned and most industrious Dr. Tilsley Animad on Hist. of Tythes to whom I refer the Reader who desireth further to be satisfied concerning those things And then you say about that time it came to be received and believed that tythes ought to be paid c. I cannot but think you dissemble your knowledge who say That it was about a thousand years after Christ before it came to be received and believed that tythes ought to be paid Origen Cyprian Jerom Ambrose Augustine c. believed them to be due and payable or else they would not have pleaded so earnestly for them and you know that these lived some hundred of years before the time which you mention Consider what your self have confessed and for shame contradict not that You say That in England as well as other Nations every man might have given his tythes where he pleased till about the year One thousand two hundred If that were true I could not but think it great pitty that they were so long ignorant But must we still be troubled with your Crambe and often repetitions of one and the same falshood surely it is already nauseous to the understanding Reader Page 21. Pleaded for Humane right To this and many things else gathered out of Mr. Seldens History of Tythes I answer again That it skills not much what others plead God gave Ministers the jus and right of Tythes from that time that he had a Church I say Jus in re a right in Tythes though Humane Laws may be said to give them Jus ad rem that is a Law and Custom of Court to claim and recover them as their right To this if Kings and Parliaments have contributed their power and authority by Laws and Decrees they did justly and religiously therein For therefore God put the power into their hands well knowing how malicious Satan is against Ministers of the Gospel and how in his ambition to bring men to his Kingdom of Darkness and Atheism the subtil Impostor works as you do on the worldly minder of Neuters in Religion who wouldly gladly be of the cheapest one that they might spare their purses and the newest that they might be in the fashion Now for Statutes of Kings and Parliaments suppose they have power concerning mutual Humane rights i. e. Meum and tuum God onely hath right in his reserves Suum cuique is the Rule of Justice and Christ said Give to Caesar that which is Caesars to every one that which is his onely let Gods Portion be sacred and inviolable We look therefore on Statutes as effects of Gods mercy towards his Church making Kings and high Powers her Nursing-fathers and yet we say that we ground not our Claim and Interest therein God hereby used a Coercive power to restrain the Sacriledgious because of the hardness of their hearts who regard not Gods Laws but fear Mans. The Law you say doth not give any man a property But sure the Law of God doth of and by which we hold from whence we claim our portion And we further say That if no Humane Law Act or Decree had been made for us on this behalf yet had we a firm right to that which God assigned us by his Will revealed in his Word Yet we thankfully acknowledge that we ow very much to the Laws and Grants of good Princes Magistrates Councils and Judges for our actual recovery of our dues without which it may too easily appear by you and your party how little comfort and support mens consciences would afford Ministers notwithstanding your pretended sufficient maintenance for them whose Judges you would appoint your selves Was not Ticonius your Tutor August Ep. Vincent Cic. Acad. q l. 4. or one of that Sect who said Quod volumus sanctum est or some Protagoras affirming Id cuique verum esse quod cuique videatur You say He that saith they are onely due by Humane Right Pag. 22. c. We know not any of ours who say so We say they are due by the Law of God and Man and recoverable by Humane Laws to God subordinate As Stante Repub. Israeliticâ peculiar Rights and Interests by the Moral Law due and claimable were justly recovered by the Judicial which God appointed as a subsidium thereto and Band of Obedience the execution whereof was by men appointed to judge so now For Magistrates are still to execute justice according to those Laws which by Statute or Statutes are made Judicial to us And if our Magistrates may justly judge for me I may as justly claim and recover my right by the same Law and Equity Adde hereto That Councils may and ought to make Laws to binde the people to obey Gods Moral Law and by just punishments appoint restraints of transgressors thereof that it may be well with them and their children For Salus populi suprema Lex This may appear if we consider either first or second Table As in case of prophanation and common swearing or prophanation of the Sabbath or against Murder Adultery Theft we have wholsome and necessary Laws Now if for the obedience to God Humane Laws be good and necessary in respect of one Moral duty why not in others As if for the maintenance of Gods worship in the quotâ parte of time by God reserved and thereto still necessary Why is it not as just and necessary in the quotâ parte of our substance by the same Law of God reserved to and necessary for the same To the matters in your following Cavils concerning Civil Rights Ministers Proprieties and Courts wherein they have been or ought to be recovered you vainly trouble your Reader our claim being from Divine Law whereto all Laws and Courts ought to be subordinate Pag. 22. You say further That the Act for Tythes gives nothing but