The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1879-11-05
For the Central Presbyterian.
No Tithe-Law in the New Tes-
lament.

dISuGu llldG Vic DUG Iul IlSueS llO eNl-
dence Of general tithe-law before the
Mosaic dispensation. The object of the
present article is to show that, after the
Mosaic dispensation, it was not recog-
nized nor reaffrmed in the New Tesla
ment Scriptures.
The advocates of the tithe-law adduce
the following passages:
l. Matt. XIII; %, "Woe unto you
Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites for we
pay 1.-THE of mint and anise and cummin,
and have omitted the weightier matters
of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith {:
these ought We to have done, and not to
leave the other undone" The meaning
of which is thus explained by Mr. NJ. H.
Houston; Lest anyone should think that
by his rebuke, He intended to abrogate
the law of tithes, the Saviour added,
These ought We to have done. You do
right to be punctihous about the tithes:
only neglect not judgment and the law
of God. And thus Christ reafirms the
1.-THE law.
The fallacy of this reasoning is evil
dent when We apply it to other cases.
For instance, Jesus said to his disciples,
"The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses
seat all therefore whatsoever they bid
you observe, that observe and do" Does
he r6afirm the authority of the Scribes
and make it binding on the Church?
Or, when he said to the leper &C., show
myself to the priest, and offer the gift
that Moses commanded, does he reafirm
the authority of the Leyitical priesthood?
and the necessity of sacrifices for cere-
monial uncleanness Evidently this will
not do. 1t does not follow that because
the 1.-THE law was binding upon the Scribes
and Pharisees in the days Of Christ, there
fore it is binding upon us: for the whole
Mosaic law,-circumcision, sacrifices, tith-
ing, and all-was obligatory upon the
Jews until the setting up of the new dis
pensation.
2. Heb. vii: s, Says the writer from
whom we quoted above, IF anyone should
halt at this last step, we lay before him
the explicit declarations of the inspired
writer and here men that die, "a. e., the
Levitical priesthood, receive tithes; but
there he receiveth them of whom it is
witnessed that he liveth Of whom, in
the true sense, is it witnessed that he
liveth. but of Christ? But if Christ re
ceives tithes, his people are called to pay
them"
Now we maintain that there is not q
,uord IN this passage about Christ re-
ceiUing tithes. The verse refers to Mel
chisedec of whom it has already been at
Grmed (verse 81 that he had neither be-
ginning of days, nor end of life, but abid-
eth priest continually And the refer
ence is to his receiving the 1.-THE Of the
spoils from Abraham. Says old John
Owen, "there are as many different anal
Uses of this chapter, as there are common
tators upon it: and sometimes the same
person proposeth sundry of them, without
determination of what he principally
adheres to-" Yet in spite of the differ
ences of opinion upon other points, all the
critical commentators, to whom the writer
has access, agree that this passage refers
to Melchisedec (See Olshausen, Calvin,
Owen, and Sampson
3. Cor. tx: Is, IA, "Do we not know
that they which minister about holy
things, live of the things of the temple ?
And they which wait at the altar are
partakers with the altar? Even so hath
the Lord ordained that they which preach
the gospel should live Of the gospel"
The Apostle is proving the right of
ministers to support from the Church,
which he argues, a. verse 7, from the
fact that other men, (e. g., the soldier, the
vinedresser, the shepherd) derived sup
port in return for their labor o. verses
ell, from the Mosaic law which granted
dumb brutes a part of the proceeds OF
their labor: g. from the example of the
temple service, where the priests lived OF
the things Of the temple, and atepart of the
sacrifices offered on the altar. This is a
clear, strong argument for the adequate
support of the ministry; but how does it
reafhrm the 1.-THE law?
Mr.. Hogshead in his book, The Cos
pei Self-Supporting, takes even so, to
be equlYaIShU 10 Ill Ine Same maHlleT.
And would make the Scripture read in
the same manner hath the Lord ordained
that they which preach the gospel, should
live of the gospel" While Mr.. Houston
says, "If we would learn then how Christ
would have his ministers supported, we
must learn the method by which God
supported the priest. They however
assume that their Interpretation is cor
rect, and give no proof to support it.
Now Afford, and Hodge, and Olshausen
(the only commentators, in the writer's
library, who notice this point all take
the expression "eren so, to denote analo-
gy and make it equivalent to, " 50 also
4. E., so also" Gin analogy with Gods