The Question of Tithes, Title page – Introduction
The Quaeſtion of TYTHES REVISED.
ARGVMENTS FOR THE Moralitie of Tything, enlarged, and cleared.
OBIECTIONS MORE fully, and diſtinctly anſwered.
Mr SELDENS Hiſtorie, ſo farre as Mistakers hauehave made it Argumentatiue againſt the Moralitie, ouer-ly viewed.
By WILLIAM SCLATER, D. D. and Miniſter of Pitmister, in Somerſet.
DEVT. 33. Verſe 10, 11.
Of Leui he ſaid, They ſhall teach Iacob thy Iudgements, and Iſrael thy Law.
Bleſſe, O Lord, his ſubſtance, and accept the worke of his hands: Smile through the loynes of them that riſe againſt him, and of them that hate him, that they riſe not againe.
LONDON, Printed by IOHN LEGATT. 1623.
REVERENDO IN CHRISTO PATRI AC DOMINO, ARTHVRO, Prouidentia Diuinâ Bathonienſi ac Wellenſi Epiſcopo, Domino meo plurimùm obſeruando.
HOnorande Praeſul, Annus iam agitur fermè duodecimus, ex quo mea, qualiſcunque, de Iure Decimarum velitatio, in vulgus emanauit. Quanto, Credis, cum literatorum propè omnium applauſu? Nec tamen ſine vulgi (abſit verbo inuidia) Sacrilegi oblatratu. Fremerè exin atque indignari quotquot in Sacra inuolarant, non aliter ac Demetrius Epheſinus cum ſuis, vbi Dianae magnificentia periclitaretur, hoc eſt, foreign illorum in diſcrimen vergeret. Nimirum & de Arte Decimandi, perinde vt de Statuaria Opifices illi, Generoſi fere omnes noſtri ſuauiter victitant.
Siquis paulò cordatior, vacillare aliquantulum, vt fit, & tremere: mox etiam gratulari ſibi, quòd de Rure paterno, non de Iure Paſtoritio victum ſibi quaeritaret. Mirari Ego quorſum Res exiret: Cum ecce Conductitius neſcio quis, Decimarum & ipſe, quod nunc audio, impurus Heluo, mea omnia ventilare, ſugillare; cenſura ſupra quàm Magistrali luſtrare; ſcommate vere Lucianico mordere, rodere: Pedum etiam ſupploſioni, ſi fas, exponere. Tranſacta Res eſt: verſa, euerſa ſunt omnia: Sopita eſt denuo Conſcientia. Faxit Deus, ne non & mortua.
Eam ego vt ſemiſepultam, ſi pote, exuſcitem, id vero nunc do operam, quàm vereor, ne non inanem? vt, vt, Accepta ſit Deo, Eccleſiae vtilis, Tibi grata, Sat habeo. Inhient etiamdum plenis faucibus Heliogabali nostri Peculio Dei: vorent quod ſacrum eſt & ſanctum Deo. Vorent, vt euomant. Quis vero ferat niſi foreign perire Sacrilegos? Subit etiam mentem, & ſolatur aliquantulum, quod Iudeis diuerbti loco dicitur, Quando duplicantur lateres, tunc venit Moſes. Hac ſpe (quantilla?) fretus, Rem ipſam aggredior; Auſpicato, credo, ſatis, quod ſub tuis Tanti viri, Auſpiciis. Soſpitet Deus.
Quod ſupereſt Deum Optimum Maximum enixe comprecor, vt Amplitudinem tuam indies magis magiſque amplam reddat: Ipſum Te Eccleſiae, Nobis, quàm diutiſsimè incolumem ſeruet: vt, quod facis, Pietate, Sanctitate, Industria, Clero tuo praeluceas. Faxit. Amen.
Pitmiſterij, Dat. Kalendis Ianuarijs, Anno Reparationis humanae 1621. Amplitudinis tuae ſtudioſiſsimus, Idem qui & Capellanus tibi addictiſsimus, WILL. SCLATER.
The Introduction.
SInce I began to ſmatter in iudgement of queſtions, thus I hauehave euer thought of the particular; that its amongſt thoſe, that may much more eaſily be defended, then euicted. So vtterly inconſequentiall, are all arguments pretended againſt the diuine right of Tything, yet ſo blind is preiudice, ſo eareleſſe the belly, ſo ſtiffe and abſurd couetouſneſſe, in denying principles, and in ſpight of all premiſes reſolued to hold the concluſion of Sacriledge.
Difficultie of euiction ariſeth hence: firſt, that oppoſites take from vsus appearing principles, and put vsus to prooue them in our owne ſcience: ſecondly, hauehave framed to themſelues principles, which no man muſt dare to contradict, vnderunder perill of hiſſing at for abſurditie: A principle it ſeemes to my poore vnderſtanding. Firſt, that praecepts of God, neuer ſo ancient, hauing no appearing repeale, binde euer to the end of the world. Secondly, that men willing to looſe Conſcience from bond of any diuine praecept, ſuch eſpecially as but lookes towards moralitie, muſt be able to ſhew, by ſoundeſt euidence, the abrogating of that, from which they pretend to be inlarged. For what our Sauiour diſclaimes, dares any attempt?aMath. 5.17. Diſſoluing the Law in any Iot or title? without cleare ſignification of the Law-giuers will for ceſſation? Or ſuppoſe wee, hee ſpeakes of the maine only after the letter, and not of particulars, and degrees of dutie, couched vnderunder the maine? Of particulars and degrees of ſinne implyed in the groſſe? who ſhould not tremble at ſo profane arrogancie, that heares him proteſt his bMath. 5.19.nullitie in Gods kingdome, who breakes, or teacheth breach of the leſt commandement.
Tis ſtrange libertie theſe licentious times hauehave taken; to cancell at pleaſure, what their fancie diſtaſteth in the Law of God.
How vrgent is thecDeut. 4.15, 6. caueat against Image making, for repreſentation, or worſhip of the Godhead; how plentifully particularized, and backt with reaſons? yet goes it for current doctrine amongſt ſome Papiſts, that the praecept was temporarie, peculiar to Iewes; in reſpect of their groſſe rudeneſſe, and ſtrong propenſion to Idolatrie. Its a praecept in caſu, todIer. 4.2. ſweare the Lord liueth in truth, in iudgement, and in righteouſneſſe. A toleration rather, ſay Anabaptiſts, limited to Iewes, in their eſtate of weakeneſſe, and imperfection. No oath lawfull to Chriſtians in new Teſtament, in what cauſe ſoeuer, by what authoritie ſoeuer impoſed.
Praecept of Sabbath, ancient, ſome thinke, as the world for the quota of time; we are ſure, enrolled by Gods owne finger in the two Tables of ſtone; yet thought a meere Iewiſh ceremonie, to vaniſh with other ſhadows of heauenly things, in this time of reformation.
Subiection to Chriſtian Magiſtrates, inioynedeEph. 6.2. in the first commandement with promiſe, lawleſſe Anabaptiſts make proper to the State, and politie of ruder Iewes.
Vſury, ſo damned by Moſes, Prophets, Councils, Churches, Heathens, is deemed a ſinne peculiar only to the people of Iewes.
Were Nicholas of Antioch now aliue; or Nichols the Familiſt, approaching as neere to his hereſie, as to his name; they would voyce it as ſtrongly, that fornication was a ſinne peculiar to Iewes; And that Chriſtians may liue after the licence of Plato his Common-wealth, rather then aſtrict themſelues to theſe lawes of Moſes, made ſeuerall, as their opinion ſeemes, to the Iewiſh Nation.
May not Dauids Apoſtrophe beſeeme vsus in theſe times,fPſal. 119.126. Its time for thee, Lord, to lay to thy hand, for men hauehave deſtroyed thy Law. What praecept, with greateſt inſtance preſſed, may not a licentious Libertine plead to bee exempted from? If it may be lawfull, without ground to auouch it meerely Iudaicall? Yea, how would my ſoule wiſh rather to be a Iew, that diſſolute nature might be reſtrayned in mee by lawes, and my Conſcience inioy the ſweete comforts found in obedience, then to inioy ſuch liberties of Chriſtians, ſuch lawleſſe licence, to be Idolatrous, luxurious, impious, Sacrilegious?
Should not Chriſtian Conſcience be well aduiſed, how it ſlights any the praecepts of God? Had not the euidences need be praegnant, that induce vsus to beleeue our freedome from their obedience.
Thinke of it ſeriouſly, you that put vsus to plead our ius, while you keepe poſſeſsion of Tythes: whither it lye not rather on your Conſcience, to prooue repeale of that diuine Law-giuen for Tything. Leaſt that taxe of our Sauiour laid on the Phariſees, light on you; full well hauehave you gMath. 15.6.abrogated Gods commandement to ſtabliſh your owne tradition, or rather fancy. AndhIude 12. without feare to feed your owne couetouſneſſe, and luxurie, with Gods reſerued portion. Once wee are ſure, a law of Tything there was giuen of God: obſerued by Patriarches, ancient Iewes, and Chriſtians; maintained by Fathers, to ſtand ſtill in force: how may any dare auouch it abrogated without cleareſt euidence of the word of God?
Their principles, ſuch as they are, receiued amongſt the vulgus and their Chaplens, let vsus examine. 1. That is impregnable borrowed from Manichees, pointed at by Thomas; that Christians ſtand bound to no praecept of Moſes, or Prophets, which Chriſt, or his Apostles hauehave not, in Scriptures of New Teſtament, giuen life vntounto. Would they, I trow, be ſo vnderſtood? that all Moſaicall; and Propheticall praecepts, which are not totidem verbis reuiued in new Teſtament; are now mortua? Apageſis Antinome.
Or ſufficeth the proteſtation of our Sauiour that heiMath. 5.17. came not to deſtroy the leſt title of Moſes his morall Law; and that of Paul, thatkRom. 3.31. faith doth not abrogate the Law, but rather ſtabliſh it, to countenance whatſoeuer Law giuen by Moſes, explicated by Prophets, which was not either particularly iudiciall, or amongſt the ſhadowes of things to come. That yeelded, till that of Tything be euidenced to bee amongſt the ſeuerals of the Iewes, life it hath ſufficient put into it by Chriſt and his Apoſtles, in their proteſtation, and auouchment for the generall.
But who ſo is acquainted with their diſcreeteſt anſwers to arguments grounded on Scriptures of the new Teſtament, ſhall finde them to exact a praecept, punctually there ſpeaking for Tythes; with ſuch ſcorne ſhall hee heare arguments of moſt apparent conſequence thence drawne, reiected; becauſe the concluſion for Tythes, vnderunder that name, is not extant in our teſtimonieslGal. 6.6. Make the inſtructer partaker of all thy goods, ſaid the Apoſtle. Part-taker, ſaid an Arch-preſbyter amongſt them, not Tenth-taker; and pleaſed himſelfe much in the elegance.m1 Cor. 9.13, 14. As Leui miniſtring about holy things, liues of the Temple, &c. So hath Chriſt ordained for them that preach the Goſpel, to liue of the Goſpel. To liue of the Goſpel, God forbid elſe; but had Paul meant Tythes, doubtleſſe hee would hauehave named them. Their ſecond Principle then is this, that Scriptures of new Teſtament meane to oblige vsus to no duty, but what by name it commends vntounto vsus. Anabaptiſts, I thinke, and our lay-Parſons, are, in the grounds of their Tenants, coniurati; ſworne brothers.mMat. 28.19. Though Chriſt ſaid,n1 Cor. 1.16 Baptize all nations; Though Paul baptized whole houſholds; thoughoAct. 2.39. Promiſes, pAct. 10.47.ſpirit, qMar. 10.14.kingdome, belongs to Infants, yet, after Anabaptiſts, neuer meant Chriſt to admit Infants to his baptiſme? for as eaſie had it beene for him to name them, had hee ſo intended, as to leaue it determinable, by doubtfull conſequetiall deductions. 3. Their third ground they hauehave borrowed, vnwittingly it may be, from the ſchoole of Thomas; the beſt Patron, I dare ſay, of their opinion. That the ancient practiſe of Abraham, and Iacob, before the law written, was arbitrary onelyonly, without any iniunction, or praecept of God. And yet, ſaith, Thomas, Abraham had his Propheticall inſtinct which was to him a law. And may wee thinke their ſacrificing, and like deuotions, or pious offices, were done without iniunctions? By faith Abel offered. Heb. 11. Therefore not without a word of GodrGen. 26.13.. Abraham kept Gods charge, his commandements, his ſtatutes, his lawes.
The names, the ſame, as of thoſe lawes after giuen in writing, force vsus to thinke, they had their rule of faith, of worſhip, of life, according to which they were bound to frame their Religion, and life. Euen of the particular, Abrahams Tything, it ſhall after appeare, it was done of duty, of Iuſtice, by iniunction, and therefore not, as is ſuppoſed, arbitrarily.
Thus the introduction to our intendment. How loth am I, that couetouſneſſe ſhould grow impious, ſo impious, as without warrant, or ſound reaſon, to abrogate any law of God, intended to bee perpetuall: how faine would I perſwade conſcience, (and if there be any, it will be perſwaded) to prooue, before it affirme, the law of Tything abrogated; to evidence, before it pleade exemption from it; They erre, that thinke vsus onelyonly bound, by reaſons to prooue ſuch lawes perpetuall: thoſe that ſcize the Lords ancient inheritance to themſelues, thoſe that detaine any part of that portion, muſt prooue it temporary, before they can warrant conſcience in ſuch practiſe, Cleerely God gaue ſuch a law; according to it, practiſed Patriarches, Iewes, Chriſtians vponupon perſwaſion of obligation; ancients, as many as treated it, iudge it to binde the Chriſtian Church. The authority, the reaſons of none, except demonſtratiue, ſhall ſway my iudgement, nor ought to ſway anies, to thinke it temporary, belonging onelyonly to the time, and ſtate of the Iewes.
A taſte of Lay-mens reaſons, much ſwaying their conſcience, let me, though ſomething out of place, giuegive you; A pidling Cauiller, willing to ſhew his witte, would needes frame argument againſt Tything, of the text, which gaue mee firſt occaſion to treate the queſtion. After many quarrellings againſt choice of that text of Paul, 1. Cor. 9. to ſupport the concluſion, thus hee quaerees. What if from this text hee could frame an argument againſt Tythes? Anſ. He ſhould bee to me Magnus Apollo. And if out of this, or any other holy text, you could handſomely but ſtraine an argument, I would yeeld you the concluſion.
Its well with you, my Lay-maſters, you hauehave in our free hold the eleuen points of the law. I dare ſay, you ſhall ſooner fetch water out of a flint, then argument out of Scripture, to prooue your ius to them.
Yet this Text would afford ſome Sampſon one. What, trow we, may that be? if hyre or wages bee the maintenance belonging to miniſters, then not Tythes: for hire is a ciuill thing, and from men by ciuill contract. Tythes are challenged from God, as a diuine donation. Therefore Tythes, and wages, being of diuers nature, cannot both be the miniſters maintenance. But the maintenance, belonging to miniſters, is hyre or wages. 1. Cor. 9.7. Ergo: not Tythes.
Anſ. Wittie too too: quaſi dicam, if an inheritance be the maintenance belonging to Leui, then not Tythes: for inheritances are ciuill things, deſcending lineally from father to ſon, ſetled vponupon poſterity, by ciuill, or naturall, or nationall law. Tythes are challenged to Leui from God, as a diuine donation; but the maintenance belonging to Leui, is an inheritance. Numb. 18.21. Ergo, not Tythes. How eaſie is it to anſwer, that Tythes was that inheritance, and Tythes is this wages? Will you reſt in an anſwer when you hauehave it? The Apoſtle ſaith not, our maintenance, whatſoeuer it is, is wages, or hyre giuen by ciuill contract. But from proportion of wages giuen in Iuſtice to ſouldiors, &c. proues a reward or recompence, due to Miniſters for preaching the Goſpel. 2. Is eueryevery hire or wages due by ciuill contract? The foreign or wages of ſinne is death. Rom. 6.23. by ciuill contract thinke you? betwixt whom, and the ſinner. 3. Alters this the nature of things, to hauehave many efficients? Laſtly, if hyre, then not Tythes? what if Tythes be this hyre? as it was Leuies inheritance. Then though hyre, yet Tythes. Hyre imports the generall, Tythes determine the particular: hath not this Sampſon puld the houſe vponupon our heads.
A ſecond argument thence drawne, is from Pauls ſilencing of the particular, where hee purpoſely treates of the generall. Paul purpoſely treating of Miniſters maintenance for perpetuitie, mentions not Tythes, where one word yet had ſtrooke the matter dead.
Anſ. Will it pleaſe you to know, that Pauls principall ſcope is not, to treate of maintenance; but to perſwade the people, to yeeld of right in things indifferent, in fauour of the weake, by argument drawne from his example. Hee yieldes in maintenance, therefore ought they in matters of leſſe moment. His ſecondary intention is, to auow his right to maintenance: where, though grounds be laid that concerne poſteritie, yet is not that his maine purpoſe.
His concluſion in this ſecond intention is, that he and Barnabas had right to maintenance: muſt he needes deſcend to expreſſe mention of the particular quantum? eſpecially it beeing elſe-where ſufficiently determined? what if he thought the people well enough able, out of the old Scriptures to informe themſelues of the particular? This once is apparent. Scriptures of new Teſtament deale leſt particularly, in matters plainely, and plentifully particularized in the old; as in thoſe maine moralities, of obſeruing Sabbath, and forbearing vſury, &c. is euident.
But to this Argument, Paul purpoſing to ſpeake of miniſters maintenance, mentions not Tythes. Ergo what? they are not due? or no thought in Paul of Tythes, as if I ſhould ſay:
Moſes purpoſing to ſet forth thesGen. 1. history of Creation, mentions not Angels: are they therefore not created? or had Moſes no thought of their creation?
Our Sauiour purpoſely treating of thetMat. 5. Morall law, and continuance thereof, ſpeaketh not particularly of the Sabbath. How much quaeſtion hath the Church beene peſtered withall about that Subiect? Sure our Sauiour much forgot himſelfe, eſpecially hauing praeſcience of things to come, that he gaue not one touch at moralitie of Sabbath, where one word had ſtroke the matter dead. Are ye ſatisfied? ſuch arguments are the beſt, that theſe mens Logicke can frame;
Proceede we now foreign to reuiew of the quaeſtion; ſtating it after our old courſe, for the Cauillers ſake, who hath laboured to perplexe it; Who knowes whether God will more bleſſe our ſecond indeauours?