The Question of Tithes, Tract · Floating text
REVERENDO IN CHRISTO PATRI, AC DOMINO, GEORGIO PROVIDENTIA DIVINA EPIſcopo CICESTRENSI obſeruantiam plurimam.
HOnorande Praeſul, Gratulor, ſanè gratulor mihimet ipſe hanc qualemcunque gratiſsimi erga te animi mei testandi foreign. Adverſarium nacti ſumus dicacem, mordicacem plus ſatis, inſulſum tamen. Eum ego ſalibus, opinor, meis ſatis ſuperque conditum ad te mitto. Sale (videſis) forte an tuo condiendum. Déprecor. Quorſum enim? Sordet, faetet, neſcio quo modo, apud vulgus noſtrum, ſiquid fortè aſperius in istiuſmodi faetulentias animadvertatur: et dulcius reſipit, vt Dario in fuga, quicquid turbaverit in foetore diſciplina ſanior. Fruantur, per me licet, putore ſuo: Tantùm ne me, ne meos in volutabrum pertentent ſuum.
Ieiuni quicquid id eſt in hac Apologia nostra, tenuitati, obſecro, condones meae. Robusti ſiquid et ſolidi, hoc ego propè totum tibi acceptum fero. Aut fama mendax, aut tu aliquando meam Oxonij excuſam de iure Decimarum velitationem legisti, calculo tuo approbasti. Mendax ſim, niſi foreign, vt ſunt, tua dialecticam adhuc et nutantem ſententiam meam aſpectu primo firmaverint, atque in ſolidum fundaverint. Inibi ſum, et fixus haereo. Ignoſcas, quaeſo, valetudinario, et quamvis paulo plus quadragenario, ſenectute tamen (proh Deum) praematura, et Calculo Renum praegravido, gravedinoſo, ſi non equo aut pedibus ad te viſendum, conſulendum festinaverim. foreign, vt ego eruditionem, modeſtiam, dignitatem tuam exoſculor, et planè veneror. Deus Opt. Max. Amplitudinem tuam incolumem ſer vet, vt, quod ſtrenuè adhuc fecisti, Decimas Eccleſiae aſſeras, vindices; Decumanum hunc fluctum planè Naufragum ab Eccleſia propulſes; Clerum tuum ab eo protegas. Amen.
Amplitudinis tuae perquam ſtudioſus GVILIELMVS SCLATER.
TO this Argument made longſome by idle exceptions, thus my Brother Clerique. All may here be granted alſo without danger. For no man denies, that things conſecrated in the new Teſtament, is the portion by the word of God allotted to Miniſters: nor that the detainement or alienation thereof is Sacriledge: nor that (as the ſtate of the Church now ſtands with vsus) Tythes are that portion; and ſo that Tythes are allotted by the word of God for our maintenance euen vnderunder the new Teſtament. But the quaeſtion is, whether any portion whatſoeuer once conſecrated be perpetually and onelyonly due in all Ages; And ſo whether Tythes be that onelyonly and perpetuall portion for euer; which by this Argument is not prooued. For howſoeuer the detainement and alienation of Tythes bee Sacriledge (as things now ſtand with vsus) yet the change of Tythes into another kinde of maintenance as good or better, is no Sacriledge. For that which Dr. Carleton ſaith to the contrarie, fol. 26. is of no force. For first there is a great difference betweene things conſecrated to the vſe of Gods worſhip in the Temple vnderunder the old Testament (of which ſort the veſſels were whereof he ſpeaketh) and things dedicated to the Churches and Ministers vſe in the New. For thoſe were Types and Sacraments of other things (as appeareth by thoſe very veſſels, by 2. Tim. 2.20, 21.) but ſo are not theſe. Secondly, Tythes euen in the old Teſtament might be changed, ſo long as no detriment came therby to the Leuites, Leu. 27.31. So that though it were granted that Tythes were due iure diuino (which he takes for granted ſophiſtically) yet by his owne reaſon they may be changed, becauſe the change is allowed by the ſame power and Authoritie by which they are made holy to God. Thirdly, he playes the Sophister manifestly in arguing a dicto ſecundum quid ad dictum ſimpliciter; for thus he reaſoneth: It is Sacriledge to change Tythes for a maintenance and prouiſion of leſſe value then Tythes: Ergo, it is ſimply Sacriledge to make an exchange of them: which whether it be a good forme of Reaſoning, I leaue to others to iudge.
My liberall Aduerſarie, how ſhall I praiſe your bountie? What tearmes may I deuiſe to commend it? Certeinly, but that I know there be many, for all your ſaying, who deny my praemiſes, I ſhould thinke you and all men conſenting to the concluſion; which you may, without new quaeſtion, aſſure your ſelfe to be meant of a perpetuall and vnalterable portion, euen therefore, becauſe conſecrated.
But whereto I wonder all this ſhew of granting all, except to ſhow your ſelfe wittie? Why ſuch circling? why ſpeake you not in the tearmes of your Maſter that Heretique in Philoſophy, and ſay any propoſition is not foreign. As once a Rabbi in that haereſie, and other ſchiſme beeing demaunded what he thought of the Sermon he ſate to cenſure, ſaid; the man and his matter and gifts he well approoued; onelyonly one doctrine was not foreign.
Thus take my anſwer to your quaeſtion; Nothing ſanctified may euer be commoned, except by Authoritie of that God to whom they are ſanctified. Whether changed with your limits, is a quaeſtion coincident, whereof anone.
Of things conſecrated are two ſorts; ſome which God; ſome which man ſanctifieth: of Gods ſanctifying, you hauehave inſtances many in old Teſtament; of Time the ſeuenth; of ſubſtance, once we are ſure, the tenth. And of this kinde, but you, now perhaps, none quaeſtions, whether any may be vnhallowed without warrant from the Sanctifier.
Is the quaeſtion of that which man ſanctifieth; whether euer by mans owne Authoritie it may warrantably be vnhallowed? thus is the anſwer diſtinct, as ſuddenneſſe permits it to be propounded: Sometimes Gods act and mans in ſanctifying paſſeth on the ſame matter; God ſanctified the Sabbath, iGen. 2.3.by ordinance to his owne vſe; yet we reade in Iſay after ſome tranſlations, If kIſa. 58.13.thou ſhalt call it a delight to conſecrate it as Glorious vntounto the Lord. The l1. Cor. 3.17.temple of God is holy which yee are; our bodies and ſoules are Gods; yet ſaid Paul mRom. 12.1.offer vp your ſelues vntounto God. Such votarie conſecration by man of things already holy to God, multiplies the obligations to render; aggrauates malice of Sacriledge.
2. Sometimes man conſecrates what God hath left common, as Ananias the price of his poſſeſsions: nAct. 5.2.whether dominion or vſe, as Canoniſts diſtinguiſh, ioyntly or ſeuerally, it matters not here to ſpecifie: of this kinde of things ſanctified is all the quaeſtion. For my part I doubt not but the character of Gods firſt impreſſion in Tythes, is indeleble; and that mans votarie conſecration of them, gaue them no new hallowing, but encreaſed obligation to their payment. Howbeit ex abundante, I will ſuppoſe they hauehave no other touch of holines, then mans deuotion hath put to them.
Thus is the Argument for the maine vponupon that ſuppoſall. Its oProu. 20.25.a curſe to deuoure that which is ſanctified; that is, any thing that is ſanctified, at any time. And after the vow to inquire; this laſt clauſe forceth to iudge, he meanes of things votarily, or voluntarily conſecrated by man. Will you ſay, while its ſanctified; or as the caſe ſtands with them amongst whom its ſanctified? You call to minde the idle euaſion of Arminians in the quaeſtion of Apoſtaſie, whether it be incident to men regenerate. We ſay as S. Iohn; p1 Ioh. 5.18.He thats borne of God ſinnes not the ſinne vntounto death: True, ſay they, quàtalis, or quandiu talis. Whereas eueryevery man knowes that Apoſtaſie proceedes not from regeneration; and that it implies a ceaſing to bee talis; and therefore neceſſarily excludes the quandiu talis. EueryEvery man knowes, a ſober man is not drunke as he is a ſober man, or ſo long as he is ſober; drunkenneſſe proceedes not from ſobrietie; and it implies, to ſay, ebrius, quandiu ſobrius.
Once ſanctified, euer ſanctified; if th'intendement of the votarie were for perpetuitie. I hauehave heard of the rule, Eius est tollere; cuius ponere; but I aske your iudgement, whetherqAct. 5.2, 3, 4. Ananias his reuocation of part vponupon ſecond thoughts, did excuſe him of Sacriledge?
2. Beſides there is by ſuch vow or deuotiō of man, a new propertie and dominion giuen vntounto God in the thing deuoted. Shall man, can man defeate God of that propertie? dic ſodes.
Is the quaeſtion now of the change? Whether the ſanctified portion may be changed, and another with your cautions ſubſtituted in ſtead thereof? I ſhould thinke not. Eſpecially if you meane as you muſt, a change of the whole kinde, for perpetuitie.
1. For that God allowed no change of the particular; Much leſſe of the whole kinde. Leuit. 27.33. He ſhall not looke vponupon it whether it be good or bad, but the Tenth muſt be rendred in the particular; becauſe thats it that is holy to the Lord, ſaid hee, euer the tenth or the aequiualent.
2. Next, Salomon; Say not before th'Angel rEccl. 5.6.it was an errour, I was miſtaken in the matter vowed; take another which vponupon ſecond thoughts is found better. Why ſhould the Lord deſtroy thee not in thy time?
3. I finde the command peremptorie and praeciſe to pay that which is vowed, that is, as I take it, that very particular.
4. Becauſe I obſerue paenaltie (as I conceiue) inflicted in caſe of exchange attempted;ſLeuit. 27. Both the particular and the change must be the Lords.
5. VponUpon grant of power to exchange, the matter of Sacriledge muſt bee vncertaine, and no man chargeable with that ſinne as vponupon certeintie.
6. Why not diminution of part as free from Sacriledge, as exchange? which yet in Ananias tAct. 5.his caſe is damned.
But is it naught to purpoſe which the now reuerend Biſhop of Chichester ſaid to this point of exchange? heare him.
If Sacriledge be in taking away holy things from God and his Church, it appeareth more in taking away Tythes then in any other thing whatſoeuer. Neither can Sacriledge herein be excuſed, though men ſhould eſtabliſh ſomething in place of that holy thing taken away?
1. Becauſe the changing of holy things is Sacriledge no leſſe (though haply a leſſe kinde of Sacriledge) then taking away of the ſame. If Nabuchadnezzar hauing taken away th'holy veſſels out of the houſe of the Lord, ſhould in place thereof hauehave put ſome other, might his Sacriledge thereby be excuſed? or Beltazzar taking the veſſels of the Lords houſe, and in them banquetting with his Lords and Concubines, if he ſhould in ſtead thereof hauehave placed other, could any iustifie his Sacriledge therfore? no more can the taking away of Tythes be iuſtified, though ſomething in place thereof ſhould be appointed by men.
His opinion you are not bound to ſubſcribe vntounto; perhaps he is not yet growne claſſicall: but what to his Reaſon? For things which God himſelfe hath ſanctified?
Forſooth; This difference there is betwixt things conſecrated to the vſe of Gods worſhip in the Temple vnderunder the old Teſtament (of which ſort the veſſels were whereof he ſpeakes) and of things dedicated to the Churches and Miniſters vſe in the new: for thoſe were Types and Sacraments of other things (as appeares of thoſe very veſſels, by 2. Tim. 2.20, 21.) ſo not theſe.
Anſw. Right ſo. Yet when I from ground as good or better affirme firſt fruits myſticall reſemblances of Chriſt and the gifts of the Spirit in this life giuen, how merily game you at mee?
But ſay in good ſadneſſe: is there in this point of vnalterableneſſe without diuine Authoritie a diſparitie betwixt things then conſecrated by God in Old Teſtament, and thoſe by him hallowed in New? or hath God giuen more libertie of exchanging things ſanctified in New, then of thoſe other hallowed in Old Teſtament? What one paſſage of Scripture hauehave you to guide you? Belongs not this to both Teſtaments? Its uProu. 20.25.a curſe to deuoure holy things. And, thou that abhorreſt Idols, wRom. 2.22.committest thou Sacriledge? put differences, as many as you will, betwixt one and other in other reſpects, in this of vnchangeableneſſe whereof is quaeſtion, you ſhall neuer be able to cut difference.
This it ſeemes you ſaw well enough, and therefore your ſecondarily auoucheth with too much confidence, thatxLeu. 27.31. Tythes might then be changed ſo long as no detriment came by th'exchange to Leuites.
1. Belike then your difference is not vniuerſall for things conſecrated in Old Teſtament; for ſome of them might be changed, as you doe handſomely inſtance in propoſito, the point quaeſtioned of Tythes. Phi, phi; why dye you changeable? might they not be changed, and yet might they be changed? Pugnantia loqui te non vides? Or if you meant your vnchangeableneſſe particularly to the veſſels of Seruice in the Temple, could no other particular of things then conſecrated alterably be inſtanced in, but the Tythes in quaeſtion? Why hauehave you ſo forgotten notorious abſurdities in diſputation?
2. But thinke you indeede Tythes might then be changed in that ſort which now we quaeſtion? Might Iſraelites hauehave changed that kinde of maintaining Leuites by Tythes, into another as good or better? Say I beſeech you. Or had it not beene profane arrogancie in that people to hauehave altered Gods praeſcript for the manner of maintenance, vnderunder praetenſe of bettering it?
Will your text prooue it? It ſpeakes indeede ofyLeuit. 27.31. redeeming a particular Tythe; not a ſyllable of changing the whole kinde of maintenance into another for perpetuitie.
3. Suppoſe you Redemption euen of a particular approoued? or rather tolerated? Tolerated I ſhould thinke; and not allowed. Becauſe mulcted with addition of a fift part. That, in caſe a man were ſo headſtrong in his affection that he would needs redeeme, way ſhould be giuen: Howbeit, by his paenaltie he muſt be taught that in the act and attempt he erred. My inducement is this: Becauſe I euer obſerue addition of a fift part ordered to be made ouer and aboue the ſatisfaction or amends for the treſpaſſe or dammage, how elſe, but nomine poenae. Compare theſe Scriptures, Leuit. 5.15. and 6.5. Numb. 5.6, 7. Et alibi. And aptly, it tended not to praeuent dammage of Leuites, which eaſily enough was, or might be praeuented in the price giuen for ranſome.
But how glad am I to ſee you carefull to praeuent dammage of Leuites in the exchange? and ſo cautionate for Miniſters indemnitie? In caſe of exchange of Tythes into another kinde of maintenance, you cautionately prouide, it muſt bee as good or better. Et mox, exchange is no robberie in this kinde, prouided alwaies that it be made, in an aequall proportion at the least, ſo as if the Church be not bettered, yet it is not damnified.
Bleſſing on your heart for that yet, If euer Lay-Parſon, or ſcrupulous Gentleman, or Cuſtomarie Pariſhioner cun you thanke for your refutation, I much maruell. Say, I pray you, doth the ſcrupulous Gentleman ſo practiſe? Giues hee the aequiualent to the Tythe? If I knew him, and he ſo practiſe, at firſt greeting I would ciuilly adore him. Miracle, mirror at leaſt he ſhould be to me, of all the Lay-Order of Parſons, whom I yet know. I may tranſgreſſe Charitie in my iealouſie of that blacke Swan. But how feare I? leaſt the little grumble of Conſcience be calmed with that parcell of your opinion, Tythes may be changed into another kind of maintenance, and no care taken of your Prouiſo, for ſubſtitution of an aequiualent.
Once I know tenne or twentie pounds Coyne-ſtipend is no aequall proportion to an hundred or two, or three, in Tythes; nor two-pence Rate or Cuſtome aequiualent to ten or twentie ſhillings of Tithes. Thinke of it my Maſter Parſons of the Laitie; your beſt Patron ſteedes you not, as you practiſe. But I returne to the Refuter.
What ſay you to that of Dr Carleton? When any thing conſecrated is taken away, that a thing of the ſame value ſhould be reſtored, who can expect? and who ſhal be Iudge?
Forſooth, he playeth the Sophister manifestly, in arguing à dicto ſecundum quid, ad dictum ſimpliciter; for thus he reaſoneth: Its Sacriledge to change Tythes for a maintenance and prouiſion of leſſe value then Tythes. Ergo, its ſimply Sacriledge, to make exchange of them.
But doth he ſo reaſon indeede? you would make him a ſimple Sophiſter.
Anſw. Thus rather conceiue him; to apprehend that ſuppoſed (ſomething) to bee ſubſtituted in roome of Tythes, of ambiguous acception: there is aliquid indefinitum; where ſomething, is any thing: And there is hoc aliquid, or aliquid limitatum, as in this caſe ſufficient prouiſion, or in your meaning, ſomething aequiualent.
Is the ſomething to be ſubſtituted, indefinite? any ſomething, in lieu of Tythes? that reſtitution or ſubſtitution, according to Dr Carleton, and according to cleare euidence of Truth, cannot be excuſed of Sacriledge; for it may be of leſſe value, its likely to be ſo.
Is it, hoc aliquid; aliquid limitatum; after the opinion there mentioned, a ſufficient prouiſion? that is a Caſtle in the ayre, as he there truly ſpeakes; beſides, not that ſufficient maintenance which God hath allotted; and in all likelyhood, not ſo ſufficient: by conſequent therefore ſacrilegiouſly ſubſtituted.
Is it your aequiualent? as good or better? To this, thus he truly; None can name any ſo conuenient as Tythes, to ſupply the place of Tythes; ſo as to be ſufficient at all times, howſoeuer the price of things riſe or fall. Which proportioning of the Miniſters eſtate, making it able to anſwer all eſtates alike, whether deare or cheape, proceeding from the wiſedome of God, cannot be matched by mans wiſedome. Thus take him in forme.
EueryEvery change of Tythes into another kind of prouiſion, which is at any time of leſſe worth or conueniencie then Tythes, is ſacrilegious. But all exchange of Tythes into any other kind of prouiſion, is at ſome time neceſſarily of leſſe worth & conueniencie then Tythes. Ergo, all change of Tithes into any other kind of prouiſion, is ſacrilegious. Of the Maior, your limits in exchanging, permit not you to doubt. The Minor is thus proued. No other prouiſion can make the Miniſters eſtate able at all times to anſwer all eſtates. Ergo, eueryevery exchange of Tythes into another prouiſion is, vt ſupra, of leſſe worth and conueniencie. What thinke you? did the Doctor reaſon a dicto ſecundum quid ad dictum ſimpliciter? did not the Batchelor rather view him ſecundum quid, and not ſimpliciter? I ſhould thinke this rather.
As to what you talke of Canoniſts opinion, and Miniſters practiſe in commutation or compoſition for Tythes, it toucheth not the purpoſe: let all be granted lawfull; what is this to a change of Tythes for perpetuitie?
Remember you not your owne Dunſe Canoniſt, reſoluing that Tythes cannot be granted to a Laicke in fee? hauehave you forgotten, that in quaeſtion of ſelling particular Tythes, they diſtinguiſh betwixt things Tythable, and the ius of Tything? Sale of res decimabilis, they allow with cautions: marchandizing the ius of Tything, they make Simoniacall and Sacrilegious. Their reaſon is, becauſe Ius decimandi is ſpirituali officio annexum. And in caſe ſuch a permutation of Tythes as you ſpeake of, were lawfull, why not alſo a transferring of the ius of Tything?
To cloſe this point, I muſt profeſſe, I like not ſuch permutations or compoſitions for Tythes, except in way of gratification, where ſcandall is feared. It hath brought vponupon the Church, Cuſtomes and Preſcriptions, ſo many, of ſo long continuance, that of Tythe, except the name of Tythe, is left almoſt nothing to many Churches.
I profeſſe not Canoniſt: yet thus much I know; Miniſters hauehave no perfect dominion in Tythes, or other endowments of the Church; & am inclined to thinke, they are at moſt but vſe-fructuaries therein. The whole right & diſpoſe of Tythes is not in Miniſters, no nor in the Church fundamentaliter or terminativè: firſt and originallyzLeu. 27. Mal. 3.8. they are Gods; by him as chief proprietary aſſigned to the Prieſthood, for preſeruation of their office, & ſupport of the ſeruice by them adminiſtred.
The fourth Reaſon followeth: The Law firſt allotting Tythes, to ſupport of the Miniſterie, and worſhip of God, was morall; Ergo, they are perpetually the Miniſters Portion. That Law conceiue to be that which guided Abraham and Iacob in the practiſe of Tything: reuiued afterwards, and further explained, what time they were aſſigned to Leui.
That it was morall, perpetually binding, is thus euident; becauſe in no reſpect caeremoniall, or particularly iudiciall to the ſtate of Iewes: you vnderſtand, I preſume, by the Argument thus moulded, that we meane it meerely morall.
Rather ſaith my learned friend; mixti iuris; In diuerſe reſpects, Tythes are both morall, and caeremoniall, and iudiciall; as was alſo the Sabbath in the old Testament. They are morall, as a ſufficient maintenance for Ministers of holy things. Caeremoniall, as Rites of the Iewiſh Religion: Iudicial, as maintenance of Leuites and Leuiticall Priests.
Anſ. So as you ſay; and not without conſent and ſuffrage of ſome both old Schoole-men, and moderne more Orthodoxe Teachers. There are Lawes and duties of mixt nature; as long before Mr Iunius taught more then one introductorie teacher of Schoole-diuinitie.Amandus de bello viſu, &c. But, I pray you, by Tythes meane you the quota? and ſay you, in that very quantity they are morally belonging to Miniſters of holy things? Sir, wee are brethren, why ſtriue we? you grant the quaeſtion. Let them be in what other reſpects you wil, caeremonious, or iudiciall, or both; if in that quota they are morally due, I ſhal be ready to ſwear anon, they are perpetually due to Miniſters of holy things. And me thinkes by your example of the Sabbath, which you giuegive for inſtance of the like, you ſhould meane ſo. For that, I preſume, you grant euen in the quotient of Time-morall: though there were ſome acceſſories of Caeremonialitie and iudicialitie alſo perhaps annexed thereto. Beſides, the very Name of Tythes determinately denotes that certaine Portion; the Tenth part of Temporall ſubſtance. So that in ſaying Tythes are morall, though with a Quatenus, you ſay as much as, the tenth part of the peoples Income by Law moral belongs to Miniſters of holy things. Or elſe giuegive vsus, I pray you, th'other part of your diſtinction, or ſome other reſpect in which they are not moral. They are moral as a ſufficient maintenance; not moral belike; as an inſufficient maintenance; As if I ſhould ſay; The ſeauenth of time is morally preſcribed, as it is a ſufficient time to bee ſpent in the ſeruice of God: not morally, as inſufficient. Whereas to ſay Truth, Gods determining this numerall certeintie of Time and Subſtance to his ſeruice, noticeth it as that ſufficiency which we muſt reſt in.
And yet meethinkes you ſhould not meane ſo as your words purport. For then, why ſtriue you for lawfulneſſe of mans exchanging that maintenance into another kinde of prouiſion as good or better. Surely vponupon ſuppoſall of that meaning, were I a man transported with paſſion, I ſhould bee ready to cry out as you; Oh horrible, Is it poſsible a Minister of Ieſus Chriſt ſhould teach that man may alter or reuerſe Gods morall praecepts? And if an Angell from heauen ſhould ſay ſo, I know how to esteeme him.
But how handſomely might a man with ſuch a quatenus, maintaine ſacrifices and burnt offerings to be morall; yea and the duty whatſoeuer it is, that is moſt meerely morall, to bee caeremoniall and Iudiciall? TheaIoſ. 13.14. Sacrifices of the Lord God of Iſrael made by fire was Leuies inheritance; part of his maintenance; impleade me, if you liſt, for ſaying they are morall; vrge as you well may, that they were meerely caeremoniall; my diſtinction is ready; in diuers reſpects they are caeremoniall, and Iudiciall and morall. Caeremoniall as rites of the Iewiſh religion; Iudiciall as Leuies inheritance; yet morall as a competency, and part of ſufficient maintenance aſſigned to Miniſters of holy things. And could I not ſhift, trow you, to maintaine prayer Ceremoniall, or Iudiciall? Preſſe mee with your greateſt inſtance to prooue it morall; twentie to one but I ſhall finde a quatenus, that hath vnderunder it as much truth, as yours in the caſe of Tythes; though as ſpirituall worſhip, its morall; yet as part of Tabernacle and Temple ſeruice, ſo its caeremoniall; as a meane to obtaine and praeſerue our ſuſtenance and temporalities; ſo its Iudiciall. So be it if you will hauehave it ſo.
But ſay for Gods ſake, and vexe vsus no more with impertinent manners of ſpeech. By Tythes the ſubiect in this propoſition, Tythes are morall, quatenus, &c. Meane you the tenth part of temporalities? Then Tythes are morall, and we hauehave the purpoſe; And muſt you not ſo meane it, as in th'other, Tythes, that is, tenth part are caeremoniall; and Tenthes are Iudiciall. Let the tenth parts be caeremoniall or iudiciall with what quatenus they will, if they bee caeremoniall or iudiciall with a quatenus, then eatenus very Tenthes are caeremoniall or iudiciall; So let Tenthes be morall with a quatenus, yet eatenus the Tenth part of peoples Temporalties by morall law belongs to Miniſters of holy things. Briefly, meane you by Tythes, Decimam partem temporalis ſubſtantiae, in all three members; or meane you it in the two latter propoſitions, not in the firſt? If you meane it, Tythes are morall; if you ſo meane not, you play the abſurd ſophiſter, the idle diſputant in taking away, or altering ſubiectum quaestionis.
I proceede to euidence the firſt member of th' Antecedent. That the law inioyning Tyths was in no reſpect caeremoniall. Caeremoniall ordinances were all ſhadowes of things to come, bCol. 2.17the body whereof is Chriſt. This no ſuch ſhadow, for where is the body which this ſuppoſed caeremonies dutie ſhould ſhadow? Some hauehave ſheaped vsus this reſemblance. The number of Tenne is a number of perfection, and by paying in this number, the offerer made proteſtation of his owne imperfection, and of his expecting perfection in Chriſt. Pretty too too. Twenty ſuch like a tolerable wit would deuiſe. But can they ſhew vsus this ſignification or end of payment in Scripture, but obſcurely ſo much as by alluſion intimated? I dare ſay no; nor any other end, no not of their payment to Leui: but ſupport of Gods worſhip and recompence of their ſeruice.
2. Leuiticall caeremonies hauehave all analogicall reſemblance of the things they praefigured: Therefore called ſhadowes of things to come. Becauſe as the body carries a darke, yet ſome reſemblance of the body whoſe ſhadow it is; ſo caeremonies of Chriſt and his benefits, &c. Therefore alſo tearmedcHeb. 9.23 ſimilitudes of heauenly things, being ordained by their very ſemblance todGal. 4.9. teach the rude. Tything hath no analogicall reſemblance of imperfection, or thankefulneſſe, or Gods vniuerſall dominion: for who can, I ſay not only avow his frame, but frame it except abſurdly? GiueGive vsus ſuch analogie of this, as we are able to ſhow of others, we will then beleeue their payment to hauehave beene in part, at leaſt, Leuitically caeremonious. Of ſprinklings and purifyings, of Tabernacle, of Arke, of high Prieſt (and indeede of what not? that was truly a ſhadow of heauenly things) we finde analogie in the word of God. Ergo, eHeb. 9.7.12.As high Priest amongst Iewes alone entered into the holy of holies not without blood: So Christ into heauen: &c. Can thoſe who ſo confidently avow tything a caeremonie, thus draw out the ſimilitude twixt it and heauenly things?
3. No Leuiticall caeremonie may be vſed after full publiſhing of the Goſpel; Schoolemen ſay well, Iudicialia post Chriſtum bee mortua, becauſe they binde not: Caeremonialia mortifera; their very reuiuing is vnlawfull and deadly. But payment of Tythes by conſent of all, except Browniſts, may be retained. Ergo.
4. I finde not that the Lord in Propheticall Scriptures taxeth ſo much th'omiſſion of caeremonies, or exacteth in ſo ſtrict termes their performance, as hee doth this of Tythes. Something I finde of their faultie performance, ſomething of their ſticking in them with neglect of moralities: And this to mee is a praeſumption, they were other then caeremonies.
Laſtly, I neuer read Chriſt ſpeake ſo much of any Iewiſh Caeremonie, as he did of Tythes;fMath. 23. Theſe things ought yee not to leaue vndone; though I confeſſe as much might hauehave beene ſaid of Caeremonies during thoſe times. All theſe conſidered, may I not conclude of Tything, it was no Leuiticall caeremonie?
To theſe Arguments thus hath my friend. That all Caeremonies were ſhadowes of things to come, I would not hauehave ſuppoſed you would hauehave held; but that I ſee it in Print.
And you may chooſe yet whether you will thinke it or no if you take my exegeticall termes of limitation. For I meane of Caeremonies, Leuiticall, Moſaicall, Aaronicall Caeremonies; as wee vſe to take them contradiſtinctly to moralities and Iewiſh iudicials. And ſo vnderſtanding mee, why would you not thinke it? I aſſure you I ſhame not to hauehave it in Print.
For all men know that there are two ſorts of Religious Caeremonies in all Religions whatſoeuer: ſome ſignificant and Sacramentall and Myſticall, other ſome for decencie and good order, And if Tythes be ſaid to bee Caeremonies of order, I know no exception can be taken againſt it. 2. But we may goe one degree farther and ſay with Iunius, that of ſignificant or myſticall caeremonies there are three ſorts; one remembrances of things past; another demonſtrations of things praeſent: a third figures or ſhadowes of things to come: or as Beza ſpeaketh, Signa foreign. The Sabbath may ſerue for an example in all theſe reſpects, and whether Tythes were ſo or no who can tell? This we neede not be afraid to ſay, that Tythes were remembrances of benefits receiued in times past, and demonſtrations of a thankefull minde for the time praeſent. For ſo they were in Abraham, Gen. 14.20. And Iacob Gen. 28.22. Yea in the whole time of th'Old Testament, ſeeing they were an oblation to the Lord, Numb. 18.24, 26, 27, 28. And for my part alſo I am halfe perſwaded that they were ſhadowes of things to come: If you aske mee where is the bodie which they ſhadowed? I dare not tell you my minde, leaſt you laugh mee out of Countenance, and ſay its the deuiſe of a tolerable wit. This therefore is that which I ſay, that ſeeing the bodies of all caeremoniall ſhadowes are not made knowne vntounto vsus, it may as well be ſo for any thing yet appeareth, as otherwiſe. And if it be not ſo in Tythes, yet if they be ſignificant in the two former reſpects, yea if they were not ſignificant at all, but only inſtituted for good order, it is ſufficient to diſprooue that aſſertion, that all Caeremonies were ſhadowes of things to come. Yea it is ſufficient alſo to anſwer your ſecond reaſon, Caeremonies hauehave an analogicall reſemblance of the things they ſignified: ſeeing this praeſumeth the former to be true, that Caeremonies are ſhadowes of things to come: yea and the third too, for that hereby it appeareth, that that may be a caeremonie, which was before the Law not foreſhadowing Christ. And whereas you ſay, No Leuiticall caeremonie may be vſed after publiſhing of the Goſpel; and alleadge thereto the ſaying of the Schoolemen, Iudicialia post Christum mortua ſunt; Caeremonialia verò mortifera, Iunius ſeemes to mee to vnderſtand it better of Caeremoniall ſhadowes onelyonly, and of Caeremonies Leuiticall ſo farre forth onelyonly as any of them doth ſhadow ſomething in Christ: granting that though in other reſpects they be in their owne Nature mutable, yet that there is no abſolute neceſsitie of remoouall thereof. So that you ſee, that though it were granted that Tythes were ſhadowes of things to come, yet they may be retained, ſo long as they are not retained in that regard.
And this anſwereth to the full, all that Dr. Carleton alleadgeth to this purpoſe, Page 16, 17, 18, 19. Whether in iest or good earnest. For he alſo praeſuppoſeth all Caeremonies to be ſhadowes of things to come. Where by the way it is good ſport to ſee what game he maketh of this: that we ſay, Tythes are now vſed in the time of the Goſpel not as a Caeremonie but as another thing. And thereupon rideth the hackney diſtinction of Materialiter verum est, ſed non formaliter, out of breath; to which neuertheleſſe he must be beholden in the end whether he will or no. For fol. 35. pag. 2. When he anſwereth Abulenſis, that Tythes hauehave two reſpects; one in their generall ordinance, another in their particular aſsignation; and in regard of the former not inſtituted by the Law, but onelyonly in the latter; what is this (I would faine know) but non materialiter, ſed formaliter? &c. The reſt my louelove couers.
Anſw. For anſwer. I hope you thinke nor Dr. Carleton nor poore mee ſo ſimple or vnskilled, as not to know the notation of the name (whether of Cares the Tuſcane towne, or a carendo) and the generall notion of the Nature of Caeremonies. Well we vnderſtand it generally to denote any externall rite of religion. This alſo wee conceiue, that there were Caeremonies in this generall ſenſe taken, in vſe amongſt Iewes, which ſort ſufficiently with the ſtate of the Goſpel. There are naturall Caeremonies, ſuch as lifting vp of hands and eyes to heauen, bowing the knee, proſtrating the bodie in prayer: Religious rites apparently Naturall, and by Natures inſtinct in vſe amongſt Gentiles as well as Iewes. Neither much contend we, but there were ſome externall rites of Gods inſtitution for Iewes which yet are applicable to Euangelicall worſhip.
But when we treat of Caeremonies contradiſtinct to moralities we meane and explicate our ſelues of caeremonies Leuiticall, Moſaicall, or if you pleaſe ſo to terme them, Aaronicall Caeremonies. Whoſe ſtile in Paul is vniuerſally, elements, beggarly elements, Col 2.20.ſhadowes of heauenly things of things, to come; Gal. 4 9.The law whereof was reſpectiue onelyonly of the Leuiticall Prieſthood.Heb. 10.1.
And of theſe this is that we teach; 1. That they were all figures of things to come. Similitudes of heauenly things; ſhadowes of Christ and ſpirituall things then promiſed, now exhibited.
2. Of theſe we hauehave further learnd; 1. That they retained their vertue and power of binding till the death of Chriſt. 2. That they were after his death, for a time, liberae obſeruationis, for more honourable bringing of the Synagogue to the graue; as not the now reuerend Biſhop of Chicheſter, but that old renowmed of Hippo firſt ſpake. Were alſo for that time to be tempered in vſe by rules of Charitie, in fauour of weake Iewes, till fuller preaching of the Goſpel.
3. Yet were after promulgation of the Goſpell mortiferae, 1. 2. Quaeſt. 102. Art. 4.and could not, as Thomas ſpeakes, be vſed ſine mortali peccato. Will you heare his reaſon becauſe their vſe implyed proteſtation of ſuch faith, as who ſhall now in dayes of new Teſtament profeſſe, were worthy to be branded with note of groſſeſt haereſie, no leſſe then Iudaiſme. The faith of fathers before Chriſt, and ours ſince him, is in the ſubſtance one; yet were th'Articles thereof to be ſpecified in termes different. Theirs, as denoting Chriſt then to come; ours, as importing Chriſt already come. Proportionally their caeremonies were ordained to ſignifie things to come; and vſe thereof implyed ſuch proteſtation in that people. As therefore he ſhould ſinne mortally, whoſoeuer ſhould now in profeſſion of his faith by words, ſay, hee beleeues in Chriſt, yet to be borne, to die, to riſe againe: ſo no leſſe mortally he, who ſhall vſe any reall protestation or profeſsion in fact of ſuch faith, as who ſo vſeth theſe caeremonies, neceſſarily muſt doe, I am non promittitur naſciturus, paſſurus, Auguſtin. Cont. Fauſt. Man…h. lib. 19. cap. 16.reſurrecturus, quod illa Sacramenta quodammodo perſonabant: ſed annunciatur quod natus ſit, & reſurrexit, quod haec Sacramenta quae a Christianis aguntur iam perſonant.
What trow you? Will our Arguments now proceede? Caeremonious ordinances Leuiticall were all ſhadowes of things to come, carrying analogicall reſemblance of what they ſignified, &c. Videſis.
1. Not ſo; for eueryevery man knowes all Religions hauehave ſome caeremonies of order and decency; not all ſignificant and myſticall; And ſo might Tythes be caeremonies of order, ſay alſo of decency if you pleaſe.
Anſw. Surely, I doubt not but the whole Leuiticall ſeruice of God was carried in the ſeemelieſt faſhion, and that there was ſtrict obſeruation of prius and posterius in all their Cultus. i1. Cor. 14.40.Let all things bee done decently and in order, is a rule of the Law of Nature, and bound Iewes as well as Chriſtians. Neither make I quaeſtion but Iewes had directions euen for the order and outward faſhion of their caeremonious ſeruice, of Gods owne praeſcript, that the modus might be foreign. But Sir you muſt remember, 1. That in the quaeſtion of Tythes, and the like, whether they were Leuiticall Ceremonies or no, we inquire of the Materials of Leuiticall ſeruice; and not of the modus and externe faſhion of performance, which commonly comes vnderunder the terme of decency and order. 2. Next, I dare you to inſtance in but one caeremonie of order, if it were properlie Leuiticall, vponupon condition to looſe the benefite of this Argument if I euidence not, that it was of myſticall ſignification; and Typicall of ſomething belonging to Chriſt or his kingdome. Be it then that they had their caeremonies of order, yet if thoſe alſo were ſhadowy and figurall, how helpes your diſtinction to contradict our propoſition?
2. Yet one ſtep further you will aduenture to goe; and its foreign. I warrant you. Not all ſhadowes of things to come; for ſome were remembrances of things paſt; ſome demonſtration of things praeſent.
Scot. in 4. diſt. 1.Anſw. Euen ſo; wee hauehave long ſince learned of Mr. Iunius his Maſters, that ſignes are ſome Remoratiue, ſome demonſtratiue, ſome prognoſticall. But can you name vsus the Leuiticall caeremonie, that was ſo commemoratiue of things paſt, or demonſtratiue of things praeſent, that it was not alſo Typically prognoſticall of things to come? I dare not bee ouer confident; memory decaies as age growes, and I am ſuddenned to addreſſe this anſwer to you. But cannot bethinke my ſelfe, nor I (ſuppoſe) you, of any Leuiticall Caeremonie, whether ſacrum or ſacrificium, or ſacramentum, or obſervantia, but was withall ſhadow of ſomething to come. The paſſeouer, a remembrance of Angels paſsing ouer Iſraelites, yet withall a k1. Cor. 5.Type of Chriſt: The Manna reſerued in the Arke, monument of the materiall bread miraculouſly giuen from heauen; but was it not alſo Type of Chriſt, thelIoh. 6. liuing bread which came downe from heauen? That ſpight of the pie it muſt be true, which Paul hath; Leuiticall caeremonies were all ſhadowes of things to come.
But ſay, I pray you, ſay ſoothely: doe you thinke Tythes were Leuiticall caeremonies if it be yeelded, that their payment in old Teſtament was remembrance of benefits receiued, and demonſtration of a praeſent thankfull minde? Thinke you all things done to God in remembrance of benefites receiued, in teſtimonie of a thankefull minde, Caeremonious, and Leuiticallie caeremonious? When Zachee offered that ſweete ſmelling ſacrifice,mLuk. 19.8. halfe his goods to the poore, in part to demonſtrate preſent thankfulneſſe for his late conuerſion, ſuppoſe you his fact a caeremonie, a Leuiticall caeremonie? when the deuotion of our forefathers, built Synagogues for our Nation, and erected Hoſpitals in remembrance of benefits receiued from God, ſuppoſe you their act Leuitically caeremonious? when Pater Noſter, that is, not Poperie, but pore-blind deuotion, gaue Churches thoſe large endowments of lands and other reuenues which our Father, our more cleare-ſighted pietie hath ſtript them of, to rememorate priſtine bleſſings, and demonſtrate praeſent thankfulnes, can you thinke their fact therefore Leuitically caeremonious? This is my minde, in the maine of all my moralitie, its all by me done to rememorate paſt benefits, to demonſtrate my praeſent thankfull minde; yet can I not bee perſwaded, I am herein Leuitically caeremonious. What then though it be granted, Tythes were paide by Abraham and Iacob, and in the whole time of old Teſtament in remembrance of benefits receiued, and to demonſtrate a thankfull minde praeſent; doth
End of the text · William Sclater, The Question of Tithes (1623)