A Censure of Simony, Chapter 4
CHAP. IIII.
Tythes in the New Testament proued to be equally Sacred with those in the Old, against the Simonists obiection: and consequently the definition of Simony, concluded according to the former definitions of it, by the Schooles and Canons.
YEa, saith our Simon, I deny not, but that the tenth was holy and sacred during the time of the Old Testament, but it ceaseth to be so now in the New. O Heresie, worthy of Simon himselfe! O Folly, well beseeming the Aramites! who being alreadie ouercome in the Mountaines, promised to themselues the Victorie in the Vally, Saying, The Lord is the God of the Mountaines, and not God of the Vallyes: And is the Lord the God of the Old Testament▪ 1. Kings 10.and not God of the New? Yes, euen of the New also. For Marke: The Tythes were not said to bee holy to the Leuites, but to the Lord; Nor, that they were the Leuites, but the Lords? The Tythes is the Lords, it is holy to the Lord, Leuit. 27.30. Therefore the Lord rebuking the Iewes for neglecting the payment of their Tythes, hee takes the wrong as done to himselfe, saying, Yee hauehave robbed Mee. Mal. 3.8. Hee saith not, Yee hauehave spoyled the Leuite, and the Priest, but, yee hauehave spoyled Mee. Yf then the Lord himselfe, and not the Leuite bee intitled and interessed in the proper right of Tythes, then certainely they are as sacred now in the New Testament, as euer they were in the Old. The Tythes are holy to the Lord. Leuit. 27.28. and they shall bee holy to the Lord, v. 32. They are holy (it was said then) to the Lord of the Old Testament, and they shall bee holy to the Lord of the New Testament: And to vsus there is but one Lord.
And tell mee, foolish selfe deceiuing Simonist, whosoeuer thou art, tell me when and where Tythes ceased to be sacred? and if thou canst not tell, how darest thou call them Temporalls? But let me tell thee by the Word of the Lord, that Tythes are perpetually sacred. Search the Scriptures. Goe learne what that meaneth, Abraham gaue Melchisedech Tythe of all. If thou vnderstandest it not, aske the Apostle: and it is worth the consideration, For Consider (saith hee) how great this man was, Heb. 7.4.vntounto whom euen the Patriark Abraham gaue Tythe of the Spoyles. Abraham, the Father of all the Faithfull, not of the Iewes onelyonly, but of vsus Gentiles also, payd Tythe of All. To whom? To Melchisedeck. And what was this Melchisedeck? Priest of the most high God, King of Righteousnesse, King of Salem: in all, a perfect Type of Christ our eternall high Priest, the Lord our righteousnesse, Prince of Peace. Did Abraham then the Father of the Faithfull, yea, the Type of Gods fathfull Church, in the Loynes of whose faith (as I may say) were all the faithfull, giuegive the Tythe of all to Melchisedeck, the true Type of Christ our eternall high Priest, and the Minister of a better Testament? and shall wee doubt to tread in the steps of faithfull Abraham, except wee will be Bastards and not Sonnes? And if the Apostle vse it as an Argument to proue Christs Priesthood more excellent then Aarons ▪ inasmuch as euen Leui in the Loynes of Abraham paid Tythes to Melchisedeck: How doe wee then vphold and maintaine this Prerogatiue of Christs Priesthood, while wee either deny or diminish his right of Tythes in the Ministry of the New Testament. Sith Aaron, who was farre inferiour, receiued Tythes in the Old; yea, rather, if the Leuiticall Priesthood, being inferiour, receiued Tythes: then the Euangelicall, being superiour, much more. And why is Leui said in the Loynes of Abraham to hauehave paid Tythes to Melchisedeck? but plainely to giuegive vsus to vnderstand that this payment implied an acknowledgement of Christ their Souereigne Lord and true high Priest, as in whose onelyonly title and right they also receiued Tythes. Hence is it, that all the Leuites paid the tenth of their Tenths to Aaron the high Priest, and to his Successors;Num. 18.28. Hee being also a *Veri… res pertinet ad Christum, sed vmbr… ad Legem Aqu. in Col. 2.17. Et Ca…u. ibi…. substantia illarum rerum qua· Ceremon…ae ol…m figurabant nobis exposita…stante oculo… in Christo quia in se continet, quicquid illae futurum defignabant.Type of Christ. Le… euen the spirit of contradiction it selfe, but note how frequently and how effectually the Apostle presseth the right of Tythes resident in Christ, as a notable proofe of the eternitie of his Priesthood. For in the seuenth Chapter to the Hebrewes, the Apostle mentioneth this argument of Tythes no lesse then six or seuen times; as, Verse 2.4.5, 6, 8, 9. Hee therefore that denieth Tythes to bee due to Christ in the Ministery of the New Testament: what doth he else but deny the eternitie of Christs Priesthood, the ministration wherof must continue til time shall be no more. Yea, he must also deny, that Melchisedeck was a true type of Christ, by vertue of receiuing tythes: if now Tythes bee not really due to Christ in the New Testament, as they were typically prefigured in the Old.
Againe, when began Tythes first to be paid? Was it not so long before the Law was giuen, or the Leuites borne? Could the Leuiticall Law then disannull the nature of Tythes, that they should not for euer continue sacred, being before the Law consecrated in Act by our Father Abraham, the Type of Christs Church, vntounto Melchisedech the Type of our eternall high Priest Christ Iesus? *Concil. Magunt. ca. 3 8. de decimis.Decimas Deo, & Sacerdotibus Dei dandas Abraham factis, & Iacob promissis insinuat; & omnes Sancti Doctores commemorant. That Tythes are to bee giuen to God, and to the Priests of God, both Abraham by fact, and Iacob by vow doth insinuate: and all holy Doctors doe auouch it. Admonemus vel praecipimus, vt Decima de omnibus Dari non negligatur quia Deus ipse sibi Dari constituit, &c. Wee admonish and command, that the tenth of all things be not neglected to bee paid, because God himselfe hath ordained it to bee giuen to himselfe. And the perpetuitie of Christs Ppiesthood is proued by Tything, as Heb. 7.8. There hee receiueth Tythes, of whom it is witnessed that hee liueth. Or let the Simonist goe learne what that meaneth, Euen so hath the Lord ordained, 1. Cor. 9.14.that they which preach the Gospel, should liue of the Gospel. Who seeth not, that the Apostle there, doth paralell the Leuiticall maintenance, and the Lords Ordinance, the Altar, and the Gospel together. And doth not the Apostle there challenge to himselfe a power in such maintenance, as well as others? Marke; a power. And whence, but from the Lords Ordinance? And where appeareth the generall practise of this Ordinance, but in the Leuiticall Maintenance? And where hath this Maintenance the first foundation and institution (besides the Creation) but in Christ, figured in Melchisedech, who receiued Tythes of Abraham, the father and figure of all the faithfull, the Church of God? And shall not Tythes then be for euer sacred? And if sacred, is not hee a prophane Simonist, that offereth to buy them? Yea moreouer, are not the Ministers of the Gospel called the sonnes of Leui? Mal. 3.3. The text is pregnant, and plaine, and Interpreters subscribe to the truth of it. Christ was to fine the sonnes of Leui, that they might offer to the Lord in righteousnesse; that is, his Apostles and Disciples of the Gospel. These are called the sonnes of Leui, because they succeed Leui, in the Ministry. And if we be Leuies sonnes, who shall deny vsus Leuies inheritance; seeing wee are Leuites to the same Lord, the perpetuitie of whose Priesthood, the paiment of Tithes to his Leuites are a pregnant argument of. And if yee deny him Tithes, you must of necessity deny him the Priesthood too, & so with the Iewes conspire to kill him, that the inheritance may be yours. Yea, we are Leuies sonnes, fined and purged from the refuse of Legal Types and Ceremonies: & shal our Tythes be lesse sacred?
Obiect. But some will say: Wee hauehave no expresse Precept in the Gospel for paying of Tythes. I answere, There are demonstrations enow, and those most strong. But what needs any expresse Precept? The Precept is expresse enough in the Law. He that is more seene in the Law, then in the Gospel, and stands more vponupon Antiquities, then Verities; If the God of this world had not blinded his eyes, might acknowledge the antiquitie of this Precept in the Law to be so plaine, as it needs no further explication or reestabliment in the Gospel. The Tythe is the Lords, saith the Law. And doth not the Gospel ratifie the same, saying, GiueGive vntounto God those things that are Gods? Is not this an expresse Precept. Indeed Christ and his Apostles being busie in founding a new Church, suspended the practice of receiuing Tythes, vntill the decrepite Synogogue of the Leuiticall Ordinance expired, and the finall obsequies thereof were fully ended. But they left abundant euidence in their Gospels, to euict the right of Tithes to Christs Ministers, in the succeeding ages of the Church.
To conclude this point, That Tythes and all Church maintenance (call it what you will) benefit, or Benefice, profits, or corporall goods, they are holy, and of a spirituall nature, because they are consecrate to a holy vse: I doe not say, that Res decimarum, the things whereof Tythes consist, are in their owne nature spirituall: but quà Decima, as they are Tythes, consecrate to a holy end, and vse, they put on a spirituall nature. For euen as the bread in the Sacrament before it bee consecrate, and sanctified by the Word, it is common; but after the consecration, it becomes Sacramentall and spirituall bread (which is that change the ancient Fathers so vsually speake of, not that bastard substantiall change, which the Pontificians would falsly father vponupon them) in which respect the Apostle calleth the Manna, and the water of the Rocke, 1. Cor. 10.in regard of their typicall signification, spirituall meate, and spirituall drinke: So those things whereof Tythes and all Church maintenance consist, in their owne nature, are temporall and common, but being dedicated to God to a holy vse and end, they are not to be holden any longer for temporall, but spirituall, I say in regard of their spirituall end and vse, for which they are consecrated. And what is the end and vse, of such consecrate things? Is it not for the maintenance of Christs Ministers? and are not they in their persons, in their profession, by calling spirituall? and of what nature then can their maintenance be, but Spirituall? For Omne nutritur à Simili, Spirituall men, and spirituall …eate: both of a like nature, both a like consecrated to God. So then Tythes, or Church liuings, comming within the Verge of the definition of Simony, as being not onelyonly annexed vntounto spirituall things, but spirituall things themselues: it followeth necessarily, that to buy or sell such spirituall things, is Simonie. The definition then of the Schoole-men and Canonists formerly cited, stands firme and good, hauing all the termes and parts of a perfect definition, accoding to the rules of Logicke: which in briefe may be reduced to a syllogisme thus: Emptio vel venditio rei spiritualis est simonia: sed decimae sunt res spirituales: …rg… emptio vel venditi… decimarum est simonia. Emptio & venditi…, is the Genus: Simonia, is the Species: and res Spiritualis, is the Differentia. As Homo est animal rationale: is a perfect definition: hauing the Genus, the Species, and Differentia. Therefore according to the definition of Simonie, to buy or sell any spirituall thing, is Simonie. In which respect Iudas in selling Christ, is said to commit Simonie: Non solum plagium commisit, Cau. 1. p. 2. qu. 1. gloss.quòd liberum hominem: sed & Simoniam, in eo quòd rem sacram vendidit: Hee committed not onelyonly the sinne of man-stealing, by selling a free-man: but also of Simonie, in selling a thing sacred or spirituall.