be of vse and all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then I say did God claime his Inheritance Leuit. 27.30 declaring that those goods brought out at first by Cain and Abel confusedly and those Tithes offered by Abraham distinctly were both his Inheritance Marke that he but declareth Tithes to be his Inheritance without any precept for the Law made them onely Inheritance to Leui Num. 18.20 c. not to God and vnlesse we draw Gods right from the first beginnings as is said we shall neuer finde them the Lords by any other Scripture And this for Tithes both in matter and title CHAP. VII The word Inheritance maketh Tithes due to all ages Leuite Priest Minister words for all ages God hath a double inheritance The dignitie of the Church Ministery of olde HAuing found Gods Inheritance to haue begun § I with the beginning in effect and before the Law foure hundred yeeres by name of Tithes Inheritance what and the Law to haue prorogued them so till Christs dayes foure thousand yeeres How shall this Inheritance lose his vertue in Christ It seemeth heere that if we but vnderstood our naturall mother tongue we might easily know our heauenly Fathers will For Inheritance hath euer this prerogatiue That it can neuer bee taken from the lawfull Lord but either by consent of the owner or by Violence Tithes taken back by Violence as are all now adayes may reape Achans reward when God pleaseth As for Gods consent hereto wee will gladly expect either their proofe or our repossession Inheritance againe is either Personae or Officij If Personall then it goeth Iure Patris ad Filium If Official that is gifted by the supreme Lord to any office or seruice then it is Ius praedecessoris in successores Tithes are Inheritance both wayes Personall as they are the Lords Inheritance primò propriè and perpetuò Official as they are Leuies for the Lord that is as they are by the Lord annexed in Inheritance to the Ministery of his worship which worship though it alter in formes yet neuer in substance or Moral part thereof and therefore the Moral maintenance must euer be one for all Now if they obiect that Tithes being gifted to Leui in Official Inheritance can stand no longer then Leui he no longer then the Law We answere Tithes were at an Office and Priest-hood long before him and Leui as it signifieth the Office and not the Persons noteth all Ministers in all degrees and all ages So vnder the Law all the Leuites made vp but one Priest-hood though al Leuites were not properly Priests 2. Cor. 3.7 and the Apostle comparing the Law with the Gospell calleth both a Ministration and both their Officers Ministers and the Morall seruice in both Act. 15.21 Matth. 10.7 Preaching But to deriue the name of both Leuite and Priest by § II plainer warrant to the Ministery of the Gospell Esay prophecying directly of the dayes of the Euangelist Leuit Priest Minister are for all ages how God would worke amidst the Gentiles by the Ministery of the Iewes others then Leuites And they shall bring all your brethren that is Esay 66.20 c. the adopted Gentiles for an Offring to the Lord out of all Nations c. And I will take of them for Priests and Leuites saith the Lord. The speciall performance of this was when Paul was separated Apostle for the Gentiles and therefore he speaketh plainly of himselfe both as a Minister and as a Priest and by Consequent a Leuite Rom. 15.16 That I should be the Minister of Iesus Christ towards the Gentiles Ministring the Gospell of God that the Offering vp of the Gentiles might bee acceptable So these are Words for all Worlds and all worships Leuite Priest Minister Euer such Priest-hood such Law And Leui at first Nomen proprium of one single man the sonne of Iaacob then of a whole Tribe for distinction with the rest In the end that Tribe being separated to Gods seruice Leui becommeth Officij nota and so common to all ages and therefore may iustly admit one common maintenance as their Inheritance And in this respect the Gospell succeedeth to the Law as the Law to Melchisedec and Melchisedec to the Priests of the confused age before him This were enough for our whole cause to defend it if we were in Possessorio but seeing we doe but plead for it wee must keepe nothing backe Inheritance pertaining to God in Scripture is twofold § III His people whom hee created to his owne Image God hath a double Inheritance Deut. 4.20 Heb. 1.2 His Tithes which he separated to his owne seruice Now in Scripture language Inheritance hath a prerogatiue heere aboue the Ciuili custome for the Son inherites ioyntly with the Father And so as the Father created the Son redeemed his Inheritance yea Him God made heire of all things and by him also made the worlds To come to Tithes then what wonder that being inheritance to the Father they be also the Sonnes Or shall we yet once more kill the Heire when the Father sendeth him in his Vineyard But what if no sooner the Fathers then the Sons Shall he yet for all this lose his Birth-right He is Coeternall with the Father The Father neuer receiued Tithes but by his Officiars as first of all by Melchisedec Then I aske whether were Tithes Inheritance to Melchisedec or not If not then had God no inheritance before the Law But the Law gaue none to God but onely to Leui and so God hath none at all Num. 18 20 2◠vnlesse wee deriue it from In principio And againe to ascribe Tithes as Inheritance to Leui a perishing Priest-hood and make them no Inheritance to an Eternall Priest-hood is beside all reason And to say Tithes may be Inheritance to Melchisedec so long as he liued euen as to Leui Then I aske when ended Melchisedec Heb. 7.3 He had neither beginning nor end of dayes but is likened to the Son of God and continueth a Priest for euer Ergo He must Tithe foreuer And the same Melchisedec in the same that hee was the Fathers Priest was also the Sons Type The Consequences are al good but a fitter time shal bring further strength lib. 2. § IV This for Tithes Inheritance in the person of our Royall Priest Melchisedec Dignitie of the Church Ministery of olde Vita Ioseph ad initium Royal I say in regard of the great oddes betweene that and this our age now For of old as writeth Iosephus The true marke of Nobilitie was to deriue a mans pedegree from the Priest-hood so Ioseph was a Gentleman because ex sanguine Sacerdotali And in our owne time the only best Tenure and Holding of Possessions was to hold of the Church But now all to the contrary For Rome hath frustrate her Ministry of Matrimony and wee at home ours of their Patrimonie Shee can bring forth no wel-begotten children and we but few well
of the Priesthood as the Person and more of Christ the Verity then his Type distinguished from him so that heere is a new Antonomasie of Melchisedec for Christ cleared fully by the Apostle cap. 5.11 compared with 11.8.13.14 24. For if we looke to the persons it is sure Melchisedec as such a man onely was both borne and dyed but not as he is proposed for such a Priest or type yea Christ the true Melchisedec was borne and dyed Christus Sacerdos mortuus est But Christi Sacerdotium ne in ipsi morte mortuum Aarons perishing Priesthood The generall Apodosis to this on Aarons part goeth thus Aaron and Leui had Father and Mother not onely of their flesh but latelier even of their very Priest-hood and calling they had beginning and ending even in all things wherein they typed Christ imperfect therefore and cannot be likened to the Sonne of God as is Melchisedec His Priest-hood then consisteth in Blessing and Tithing and his perfection in perpetuitie of both thou canst not disioyne them Then we descend by the same degrees thus Melchisedec in Blessing and Tithing remaineth a Priest for euer like the Sonne of God without ending Beginning Kindred Mother or Father And of all these poynts was Christ the onely perfection Ergo He who expecteth perpertuall Blessing from Christ must appoynt a perpetuall Tithing for Christ as we shall heare more at large And this for his Priest-hood followeth their collation Heb. 7.4 Consider now how great this man was c. Here Paul entereth § III the very lists of this conflict prouing our Melchisedecs Priest-hood more perfect then Leuies vsing for all his middeses onely Blessing and Tithing The arguments are drawne from the circumstances viz The persons Blessed and Tithed the forme of the Blessing and Tithing the time of Blessing and Tithing In Person he reasoneth first from Abraham then from Leui himselfe From Abraham thus Whosoeuer is greater then Abraham Melchisedec greater then Abraham is greater then Leui. Melchisedec is greater then Abraham Ergo Greater then Leui. The Proposition he proueth thus vers 4. Abraham was a Patriarch Leui but a childe the fourth from this Patriarch And vers 6. Abraham had the promises Leui as all the faithfull enioyed the promises onely in the faith of Abraham So Abraham is greater then Leui. He proueth his Assumption That Melchisedec was greater then Abraham thus He who Blesseth and Titheth is greater then he who is Blessed and Tithed Melchisedec Blessed and Tithed Abraham Ergo Melchisedec is greater then Abraham The Proposition is the very 7. ver of Paul in the text cited The Assumption is proued by Moyses Historie and here vers 3.4.6 And this for Abrahams person followeth from Leuies person wherein let the Reader note that all Pauls proofes are onely from Tithing thus Greater then Leui. He that tithed Leui is greater then Leui Melchisedec tithed Leui. Ergo Greater then Leui. This Assumption he proueth vers 10 thus All that were in Abrahams loynes when Melchisedec met him were tithed in Abraham Leui was in Abrahams loynes then Ergo Leui was tithed in Abraham and so by Melchisedec § IV Now marke that although this last Syllogisme launceth onely against Leui All Abrahams seede Tithed in him Ios cap 7. because Paul heere had onely to doe with Leui as a Priest Yet the force of the Proposition fetcheth in all Abrahams Seede Seede I say not onely Legal but also Euangelical not onely of his flesh but also of his faith This for Melchisedecs Tithing of Abraham The Antithesis on Leuies part goeth thus Leui Tithed but his brethren Melchisedec Tithed Abraham Father both of Leui and all his brethren Brethren as is said both by flesh and faith Ergo All still subiect to Melchisedecs Tithing And such as see not this are too bigge in flesh too beggerly in faith Followeth the Circumstance in the Forme of their Tithing This point hath this Antithesis LEVI Vers 5. They which are the children of Leui. Which receiue the office of Priest-hood Haue a commaundement to take according to the Law Tithes of the people that is of their brethren Though they came out of the Loynes of Abraham MELCHISEDEC Ver. 6. HE whose kindred is not counted amongst them Vers 3. Whose Priest-hood is 16. after the power of Endlesse life Gen. 14. Had offered to him freely and long before that Law Tithes by the Patriarch of both Leui and his brethren In whose loynes all his seed was both blessed and Tithed The chiefe note heere is that Melchisedecs forme of Tithing before the Law must be greater then Leuies Tithing by the Law and so Melchisedec a greater Priest then Leui. For this action betweene Abraham and Melchisedec proceeded either from a secret instinct of that Supreme power working in both this ready and religious reuerence or rather that God euen taught Abraham who said hee would hide nothing from Abraham that he was to doe and concerned Abraham For said God I know Abraham Gen. 18.17.19 that hee will command his sonnes and houshold that they keepe the way of the Lord c. And this offer of Abrahams was not in his free option for as Abraham vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gaue freely so is it said v. 6. that Melchisedec 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He tithed Abraham as hauing authoritie They stroue in performing all duties and we in peruerting This for the two first Circumstances of Person and Forme followeth the Circumstance of Time in their Tithing CHAP. VI. Melchisedecs Priest-hood more excellent then Aarons because he is a perpetuall Priest And this perpetuitie is proued by onely Tithing TIME being an argument whereupon dependeth § I the cheefe conclusion Melchisedec a perpetuall Priest of both the Apostles cause and our question we will looke more narrowly into it For were a Priest neuer so great and his blessing neuer so good what auaileth it if it â—â—anish The onely Triumph of Melchisedec ouer Leui is his Eternitie in all his endlesse Priest-hood Then if the Apostle proue his Priesthood perpetuall he winneth his cause and in prouing hereof seeing hee vseth heere no other Medium but a perpetuall Tithing he setleth our question And thus it goeth A Perpetuall Priest-hood is better then a Temporall Melchisedecs is Perpetuall Leuies was Temporall Melchisedecs therefore better then Leuies To proue the Assumption he reasoneth thus vers 8. for Melchisedec Hee that taketh Tithes and liueth is a Perpetuall Priest Melchisedec taketh Tithes and liueth Ergo Melchisedec is a Perpetuall Priest The Proposition is true for life euer affirmed maketh the Person endlesse and Tithing euer following life maketh a Priest-hood endlesse No Priest-hood without a Tithing § II The Assumption both for Melchisedecs perpetuitie and Leuies temporalitie is the eighth verse it selfe thus And heere that is vnder the Law dying men receiue Tithes viz. Leuites Leui died daily one succeeded daily in the Priest-hood to another and in end they
Tithing of them Pauls meaning to the Hebr. for that time was not come as is said they were poore new conuerted Christians euen those for whom Paul had gathered that collection in Achaia Asia and Româ— Paul onely as is said would draw them from Leui to Christ and that in the power and prerogatiue of Melchisedec in all things belonging to Leuies Priest-hood specially Blessing and Tithing They knew Tithes were due but not due to Christ this Paul teacheth them Let euery Christian ballance these arguments in the scales of an vpright conscience fixed and setled on the word of God and accordingly dispose of his affections § VIII Behold then lastly how fitly all things are matched in those types Comparison of Melchisedec Aaron and Christ and their veritie Christ Grace is ioyned to Eternitie and Law Bondage brought to an end Melchisedec Christs first freest and most perfect Priestly type and kingly too met Abraham freely without law and before Law and as a King fed him as a Priest blessed him all in freedome Abraham againe in whose loynes we were all then both fedde and blessed like a thankefull soule met also freely the free graces of God in Melchisedec likewise before Law And so Christ our true Melchisedec not commanded litle expected least of all deserued freely meeteth Abraham and all his seede ever feeding blessing to saluation and therefore must all we the seede of Abrahams flesh and faith returne to him 2 Cor 5.19.20 and to those in whom he hath put the Ministerie of reconciliation Tithes freely not as Legally coacted And this for Grace and Eternitie Now betweene Melchisedec and Christ interuened another solemne and great high Priest also Aaron But how quite after an other order and manner long after both Melchisedec and Abraham all in bonds called commanded his very sacrifices brought by force to the Altar nothing freely And so Abrahams posteritie gaâ—e him the like meeting Tithes by force of law Bondage and bonds on both sides Grace then beginneth and Grace endeth The Law coupled Melchisedec to Christ The Law goeth betweene as a bond coupling Grace to Grace Melchisedec to Christ And so Melchisedec as Gods Priest and Christs type with the Ministerie of Christs Gospel make vp both but one poynt in the Office-worke of our saluation Euen as an Euening and a Morning Gen. 1.5 made vp but one day in the Creation Christ was but as in dawning then he shineth now In Melchisedec he put the Word of benediction in his Ministerie he hath put the Word of Reconciliation Melchisedec typed Euerlasting promises in Christ his Ministry preach euerlasting performances in Christ Now glad promises and glad tydings of their performances are but one and therefore their maintenance iustly one Tithes Inheritance Leui a linke of the same chaine also a Priest of the same worke in effect though different in forme a Remembrancer for supporting the weaknes of those dayes interuening betweene the promises and the performances typing and foretelling by numbers of rites thousands of times Christs comming in their carnal sacrifices till they poynted him out as by a fingerly demonstration whom our Ministerie now Preach in a heauenly contemplation The dores of Faith in those dayes were much their Eyes Hic est and so trustâ—es Thomas must first put his finger in his side and then beleeue The dores of faith in our true Melchisedecs dayes are most our eares by hearing and so euen Abraham beleeued hic erit and it was imputed to him for Righteousnesse And he sawe the day of the Lord and reioyced But wee Hic fuit and therefore Blessed are they that haue not seene and yet beleeue So the generall end of all is one and the generall Inheritance for all still one Leui was vnder the Law as a tenent at will remoueable Melchisedec Christs Ministery as Freeholders Oaken-tenants Diuersitie of Orders made not diuersitie of Inheritance Tithes and Priest-hood came and goe together not Tithes and Leuies Priest-hood and therefore must not end till all Priest-hood end for Melchisedec yet liueth a Priest and taketh Tithes See part 1. c. 6. To that question then made part 1 cap. 6. Why the last § IX age of the world may not serue God without Tithes as the first two thousand yeeres did Order once setled must neuer be left The answere is euident We must neuer fall backe from Order to Confusion nor from Substance to Ceremonies This were to go backe againe from Canaan to the Flesh-pots of Aegypt from Heauen to Hel. Why may we not serue God without the Tables of the Law as they did two thousand yeeres They had the Image of that Law by nature and partly doubtlesse by Tradition so were they both by Law of Nature and Tradition prepared to a Tithing as fell out betweene Melchisedec and Abraham The first age was a time of confusion the people had no rest Deut. 12.8 c. and so small order but being once past Iordan they must not doe as of before Now are we past all the Bondages in Christ and must not go back againe to the Bound-Ages of the world Otherwise we inuert the whole method both of Creation and Redemption Creation began from darkenesse to light Euening and Morning made a day Redemption from falling to rising from beggerly rudiments of the Law to the rich reuelations of the Gospel from perishing types to eternall Verities And the Gospel againe in it selfe still growing Heb. 5.13.14 from milke for babes to strong meat for men of age We must euer grow neuer decrease Therefore Christ the first Author of Grace and perfection of all grace hath not cast all againe in the Chaos of Confusion Then seeing Nature at first freely doted The right of Tithes concluded Grace ensuing distinctly defined Iacob instructed in grace solemnely vowed Law succeeding strictly commaunded the Gospel reuiuing hath by reasons â—enued the Primitiue Churches by practise restored Tithes for Gods worship Let vs euer hold that Tithes are onely the true Inheritance of the Church flowing immediatly from God to his Ministerie in all ages as wee defined them part 1. cap. 1. The summe then of all the proofe from the Circumstance of time is Whatsoeuer is due to an eternall Priest is perpetuall by due Tithes were and are due to Melchisedec an Eternall Priest Ergo Tithes are perpetually due And by Consequent this Priest being the High-Priest of the Gospell Tithes are due to the Gospell CHAP. VIII The time of Melchisedecs first Tithing Foure doubts in his posterities Tithing To whom from whom whereof and for what vses Tithes are to be taken and imployed And if Princes may Tithe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what TITHES thus setled as the Churches true Inheritance § I these doubts rest to be resolued How long Melchisedec Tithed First in Melchisedec and Abraham our Fundators Secondly in their succeeding posteritie In Melchisedec touching the time and continuing of his Tithing
heere making leape-yeare of so many liâ—es to onely Spoiles a sore Spoile indeede a meere Sacriledge So Paul riseth still from degree to degree first He gaue him a Tithe Of All second euen of the Spoiles third Melchisedec Tithed the Patriarch that had the Promises fourth Hee Titheth and liueth fifth He Tithed euen Leui the Tith-taker Of all which nothing must be lost nothing confounded Not then A Tithe of All and a Tithe of the Spoiles but A Tithe of All yea euen of the Spoiles For all Types and of all chiefely this must haue euer the largest extent of sense that Nature or Analogie can afford them They be fundamentall things and so must beare all that can be truely built vpon them This Meeting then betweene Melchisedec and Abraham being a mutuall Type of all things that might concerne Priesthood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must be extended to whatsoeuer might be afterwards intended both for Blessing and Tything proper to all Priesthood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Law and Gospell all Times all Persons all Things for all Ends as at length before To Tithe onely Spoiles then with M. Sel here were to cut off the whole grounds of the after coÌ„ming Law for Praediall Tithes And to Tithe no Spoiles with others were to cut off this very Text that of Pauls Gal. 6.6 enioyning him that is Catechised to coÌ„municate al his goods with him that Catechiseth him for many are Catechised that haue neither Tillage nor Pastorage All Predial Tithes are in a sort Personal they discharge euen the Persons laborers but all Personall Tithes cannot be held Prediall Yet both are here in the Prerogatiue of this Tipe Then If Abraham had sure he gaue else He was not Tithed if not Tithed not Blessed But he had nothing saue what he brought backe saith Targum This is doubtfull yet let it passe All the question now remaineth but de modo habendi It came by Warre yet His it was and His most lawfully then Abraham as he met with Melchisedec Had it was now His Ergo Abraham gaue of His owne Cornes Cattell Trades and all Trash did answere all both Prediall and Personall Tithes that euer could fall foorth hereafter They were the true Typicall encrease of all Barnes and all Wine-presses of all Peace and Warre-trades else our Type is naught and but a naked yea a very idle Historie And such as could drawe those three hundred and eighteene of Abrahams household seruants to Tipe these three hundred and eighteene Bishops of the first Councill of Nice would neuer haue refused this extent to this Type Ambrose in tam lucida vtriusque Testamenti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now that this mixed Tithing Prediall and Personall was in vse euen vnder the Law it seemeth cleare in that of the Pharisee Luk 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith hee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I giue thee Tithe of all whatsoeuer I possesse Will any man say that this one or all Pharisees were labourers or Pasturers or astrict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to onely Tillage and Pastorage Did not Iacob Vow to giue God a Tenth of all that God gaue him Then this Vow binding his posteritie we must either say God giueth vs nothing but Prediall things which is fals or we must pay of Personall things as he giues vs them It goeth sure as properly for all Trades as all Ploughmen And euery soule hauing is bound to say with this Pharisee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It holdeth both in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what the Law did build must haue for foundation Abrahams practise and Iacobs Vow To astrict this Typicall Tithing then to onely Warres here and onely Spoiles were to giue the Blessing also to Warres and Spoiles onely and so to make onely Dauid and not Salomon the seed of Abraham the Patriarch here Blessed and Tithed turning that Royall word Beatipacifici in Beati polemici But the current of our Text as we first obserued is quite contrary The Tither here was first King of Righteousnesse then King of Peace In a word of Warre and Peace and so Tithed Abraham after a Warre in Peace So though all came as ex praeda yet did they answere praedia Whether we march a Warfare in our Conquering Word Dieu et mon droict If God maintaine Our Right he must not loose His owne right or be we setled in Salem with Beati pacifici we must be also Decimati pacifici Melchisedec must Blesse and Tithe Abraham and all his seede the King and all his subiects no exception M. Selden chap. 1. §. 2. The next passage of Tithes is in Iacobs Vow c. as in Gen 28.22 This Vow saith Iosephus Iacob performed vpon his returne 20. yeers after Into whose hands he gaue his Tithes appeares not But the chiefest Priest of that time was his father Isaac c. How farre euen this Historie of Iacobs Vow is to be enlarged aâ—d couched vnder his grand-father Abrahams example we haue noted at laâ—ge part 1. chap 8. § 3. But whether he performed any point of Tithing as Iosephus saith or to whom I dispute not Sure Tithing was but one branch of three in that Vow and all three neither were fully and personally by Iacob performed nor intended that in him they should end Good Reader remember them from the former places for auoiding repetition I see no necessitie of exacting any precise performance either of Abrahams practise or Iacobs Vow before the setling of their posteritie in Canaan and the coÌ„ming of Christ And as for Priests Ad Philadelp there was neuer any after Melchisedec 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till the Law came and so what hope of Tithes paied 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all these were but as Caluin well termeth them Nuncupations of Tithes Sem then as Sem cannot be Melchisedec They may be one as I hold they were in person but not in Type Sem had father and mother end and beginning and so Fathered Christ Melchisedec was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so Figured Christ Of the proprietie of his Order there was onely himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Christ the onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which onely is true Scripture langâ—ge So Sem could beget and did diuers Primogenit Priests but Melchisedec no more Melchisedecs And in this respect I care not though Ignatius hold Melchisedec for a Virgine Ad Philadelp though Sem was not and yet both one Person But for such as will abolish Tithes as meerely Popish they must first proue Melchisedec a Pope For Tithes are older then Peter In CHAP. II. THat Tithing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euery Herbe M. Selden cap. 1. §. 7. which is spoken of in the Gospell and obserued by the Scribes and Pharisees was neuer commanded in Scripture nor by their Canon Law requisite according to the opinion of their Doctors who restraineth the paiment of Tithes to thy encrease spoken of by Moyses
in very Offerings and yet import no Ceremonie For although the Tabernacle once built was a most Ceremoniall Type yet the peoples offering according as they had man and woman gold or siluer silke or linnen as materials to build it withall heere was no ceremoniall offering perfected and abolished by Christ For why may not euery Christian Moyses for building houses to Gods worship command their people Lift vp or offer of their substance to that vse Their Ceremoniall signification floweth neuer from § II the nature and proprietie of the words but because the whole circumstances of the Text shew the matter to be Ceremoniall For example Exod 29.23 c. both words are mixed for the lifting vp and shaking to and fro Leuit. 7.34 of the right shoulder and the breast of the Peace-offering Heere concurre a Priest an Altar an Offering or Sacrifice all which were meerely and onely Leuiticall Ceremonies yea Shaking and Heauing haue there their owne peculiar signification in Christ as all Diuines acknowledge But what if these words doe not import this Leuiticall Ceremonie Num. 8.5 c euen in Leuiticall and Ceremoniall Offerings The Leuites were offered to the Lord in place of the first borne by purification expiation shauing washing sacrificing at the doore of the Tabernacle by the hand of the Priest and so the Leuites are in the translations called a Shake-offering vnto the Lord Heere are all things most Ceremoniall saue only Shaking For neither reade we nor is it probable that so many thousand men could bee really shaken to and fro ad quatuor plagas mundi as was done with the right shoulder and brest of the Ramme aforesaid And if any man will draw Analogie from that Ceremoniall shaking to the shaking and dispersing of the Leuites thorow the foure corners of the Kingdome then as the word is so but Metaphoricall the matter is also Morall for Leuies successors vnder the Gospell are so scattered and shaken § III Of all these we gather a two-fold offering a Ceremoniall Morall offerings and a Morall The Ceremoniall peculiar to the Leuitical Law and performed euer by a Leuitical Priest full of rites as Altar Fire Offering Heauing Shaking or some such signifying Ceremonie as is said The Morall offering also two fold either to God onely and immediately or by mediation Only to God we offer out Prayers and praises Hos 14.2 Heb. 13.15 The calues or fruits of our lips By Mediation we offer to others either for Gods sake or for Gods seruice Act. 10.4 For his sake Thy almes is come vp into a remembrance before God Philip. 4 18. Act. 24.17 A sacrifice pleasant and acceptable to God Almes and offerings To others for Gods seruice euen those Tithes Gods Inheritance for all his officers offered long before that Ceremoniall Law continued so by that Law and why not also after that Law No carnall Priest Place or rite heere for Leui did not offer Tithes heere to God in name of Israel as was the nature of Ceremoniall offerings but receiued Tithes in name of God as Inheritance from Israel All Ceremoniall offerings must bee done at the onely doore of the Tabernacle But Israel offred these Tithes in all the Cities of their trauels as we haue proued All Ceremoniall offerings were due to the Onely Priests Num. 18.8 c. but Tithes are also due and as some thinke onely to the inferiour Leuites Offering then of Tithes heere is no other then Abrahams giuing to Melchisedec and Iaacobs vowing to giue Tithes They are called an offering because they should be freely offered not craued as the custome is to this day euen where Seculars are Tithers who are called vnto cryed vpon yet will scarcely take them hauing a resolution as they robbe the Lord so to ruine the labourer Thus we see Offering of it owne nature How Tithes are to be offered is a word for Gods worship in all ages To offer Tithes then is to giue them in such forme as God requireth in all gifts viz. Speedily as Exod. 22.29 With gladnesse Ecclesiastic 35.9 Not grudgingly or of necessitie for God loueth a cheerefull giuer 2. Cor. 9.7 Without murmuring Deut. 26.14 And finally In libertie of the spirit and liberalitie of the heart as was Abrahams giuing of Tithes to Melchisedec Gen. 14.20 To make Tithes then a true Shake-offering shake off the sacrilegious vse of them and so lift vp thy heart a pure Heaue-offering to the Lord saying with the true Israelite Deut. 26.13 I haue put the hallowed things out of mine house and giuen it to the Leuite c. Lest the Lord one day shake both thy stocke and thy Tithe thy bodie and thy soule CHAP. V. Tithes not Ceremoniall in their End Two points of Leuies seruice and three degrees of Leuites for all which and to all which Tithes were giuen in Inheritance Sacrifices not properly Inheritance The â—ge vnder the Law concluded and more ancient rights preduced § I THe nature of Tithes being freed from Ceremonie their End is now quarrelled thus Whatsoeuer was ordained for the seruice of the Tabernacle must as the Tabernacle it selfe bee Ceremoniall Tithes Inheritance were giuen Leui for that seruice Ergo. The very text is their Assumption Num 18.21 Now God helpe Leuies successors that is such as bee of the Ministerie now a dayes for by this dealing hath Leui been a hundreth fold in better case vnder the Law then they be vnder the Gospell O Rich Aaron Type for a time And poore Melchisedec Priest for euer A great pitie pouertie should be perpetuall No remedie then but vp must the Tabernacle or downe must the Tithes For as to the preaching of that heauenly Tabernacle Christ Tithes not Ceremoniall it must goe for Gra-mercy Yet to say somewhat lest we lose all to the parts of this their Ceremoniall Syllogisme for little or no substance in it Both Proposition and Assumption lacke this word Onely to conclude the question aright For to be tyed to the Tabernacle and not Onely to it will not make a thing Ceremoniall For so shall we make the Decalogue it selfe Ceremoniall for it was also tyed to be read in that Tabernacle by Leui. Ceremoniall then must be Only with or Onely for the Tabernacle And if they say Tithes Inheritance are Onely for it then both Proposition and Assumption are false for two reasons I. The onely Ceremoniall seruice of the Tabernacle § II comprehended not Leuies whole function Two points of Leuies seruice II. Tithes were giuen to the whole Tribe for their whole function Their seruice and function stood in two points according to that Prophecie of Moyses Deut. 33.10 They shall teach Iaacob thy Iudgement and Israel thy Law 2. Chron. 17.7.8.9 They shall put incense before thy face and the burnt offering vpon thine Altar The first point we see is a scattered seruice according to a former Prophecie of Leuies owne Father I will diuide them viz. Leuites in
§ V They say that this Vow doth but bind vs to a maintenance in generall Tithes in quoto are not of the Law but not the same in quoto I answere Such Analogicall equities hold euen from the most Ceremoniall things of the Law to the Gospell But such things as are neither Ceremoniall nor clearely institute ad tempus or arbitrium binde the things themselues vpon vs and we haue shewed that neither Type Ceremonie nor temporall condition fell vpon Tithes That they were not onely nor first Legall Indeed if the only Law and first the Law had designed quot â—mpartem this dispute had been more doubtfull But seeing this Melchisedec that most Euangelicall Priest gaue vs the quote seeing Iacob before the Law as in a perpetuall Law Vowed the quote We see the Law is but a confirmer and Leui but an obseruer of that which was long before freely doted and for euer deuoted to Gods seruice The Law gaue but the same quote to a Priest of another Order for his time and shall that first that Euangelical that Euerlasting Priest-hood now reuiued againe come with dish in hand and say Quod vultis mihi dare And this for our Trinall harmonie in Iacobs Vision and Vow Now are some men much sollicite both heere and in the former point of Melchisedecs Possession What forme of Tithing it was Of what goods Yeerely or no As for Melchisedec the second part of this Treatise shall cleare him As to Iacobs Vow which heere we will end § VI to whom or how he payed it We say Gods promises and Iacobs performances alike Such was Iacobs Vow as was his Vision and such were the performances on his part as were the performances of Gods promises made to him Now God performed not all the points of that Vision to Iacob in his own person because not in that nature promised So Iacob performed not all his Vow in his owne person for the like reason God performed to Iacob himselfe the best part of that Vision viz. the heauenly Canaan and Iacob returneth in his owne person the best part of his Vow viz. The Lord was euer his God So his only seede enioyed the Earthly Canaan and therefore his onely seed payed Tithes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thence is it clearely proued Who are Iacobs Seede That Iacobs Vow concerned as much if not more his seed as himselfe And if they will yet a strict his seede to his onely flesh vnder the Law because after this Iacob was called Israel Gen. 32.28 and the Israelites as Iaacobs seed performed all Let them remember first that the heauenly Canaan was the principall end of Iacobs iourney and so his Vow must stand till his seed goe thither Secondly Seed heere is more of his Faith then of his flesh for all the Families of the Earth which heere are blessed in Iacobs seede were not all of Iacobs flesh Rom. 9.6 but euen Iaphets seede comming home to the tents of Sem The Gentiles called therefore all subiect by Iacobs Vow to Tithing Such as refuse let them renounce both the ends of Iacobs Ladder Heauen and Earth and goe to their owne habitation And this for our Indenture CHAP. IX The Edict of Tithes though in Leuiticus yet proued to be no part of the Leuiticall Law and so Tithes in all points as the Lords Inheritance exempted from the Law § I NExt commeth our last Writ our Edict and that very orderly For God being possessed in Tâ—thes by Abraham contracted by Iacob good beginnings for a promise onely of the Land which must pay all Now after some foure hundred yeeres peregrination for their Faithes triall by the fiery afflictions of Aegypts fornace God intimateth vnto them this publike Edict Leuit. 27.30 Also all the Tithes of the Land both of the seed of the ground and of the fruit of the trees IS not shall be the Lords All in Leuiticus not Legall or Ceremoniall Though this be in Leuiticus yet is it not of the Leuiticall Law because it containeth no Precept and therefore no Law yea it is a plaine exception from that Leuiticall Law For Moyses treating heere of the nature of Legall Vowes and of what things the people might Vow he telleth them Tithes were alreadie the Lords long agoe and therefore they might Vow none of their Tithes For to what end Iacob vowed them alreadie yet was not his Vow Legall or Ceremoniall as is said but Morall as was his vowing God should be his God Further Vowes of the Law here are voluntary at mans option to doe or not to doe Tithes not so And as this place of Leuiticus is but an Edict of Gods right so is it no right for Leui for Leuies right came not till Num. 18. In which also hee keepeth euer the same method first telling them Tithes are the Lords vers 20. and then giuing them to Leui vers 21. § II And though vers 26. he vseth the like phrase of the first borne as he doth heere of Tithes forbidding to vow any such for it is the Lords yet that same IS is relatiue to a preceding precept Exod. 13.2 Sanctifie vnto me all the first borne c. But no such Law for the ground of Gods Inheritance but Euangelicall Libertie and liberality proceeding from the instinct of God in man or tradition to and from the first man because Vt fides ita fidei opera ex auditu But the very Ethnicks as Paul saith not hauing the Law by nature did the things of the Law So they doted Tithes to their Gods And thus farre for our Possession Indenture and Edict prouing clearely Tithes to be the Lords before the Law with such euident conclusions drawne from the perpetuall equitie thereof teaching Tithes must also reach after that Law as also the title that God had from the beginning in all mens goods containing the two first ages Followeth the last age of the word SACRILEGE FOR THE GOSPELL THE SECOND PART CHAP. I. Christ and his Apostles concerning Tithes They did abrogate all Ceremoniall things GOD thus hauing from all beginning § I an heritable title to all mens goods and that by Natures light Transitio as is said not Moyses Law two thousand yeers And this his right by nature also defined euen In quoto to be a tenth part foure hundred yeeres before the Law And these same both Right and Quota by Commandement and Law continued til Christ came some two thousand yeeres Now are we to examine the Worlds last age vnder the Worlds onely Blisse Christ whether he hath yet any right in our goods or not and if a right whether the same in quoto or not The first will no man deny 1. Cor. 9.13.14 The last maketh most men adoe The Apostle cleareth the first That the one Minister must liue of the Gospell as the other did by the Law But whether hee did intend the same quota in saying Galath 6.6 Make him
of Salem that is King of Peace Without Father without Mother without kindred and hath neither beginning of his dayes neither end of life but is likened to the Sonne of God and continueth a Priest for euer Now consider how great this man was vnto whom euen the Patriarch Abraham gaue the Tithe of the spoiles For verily they which are the children of Leui which receiue the office of Priest-hood haue a commandement to take according to the Law Tithes of the people that is of their brethren though they came out of the loynes of Abraham But he whose kindred is not counted among them receiued Tithes of Abraham and blessed him that had the promises And without all contradiction The lesse is blessed of the greater And heere men that dye receiue Tithes but there hee of whom it is witnessed That he liueth And to say as the thing is Leui also which receiueth Tithes payed Tithes in Abraham For he was yet in the Loynes of his Father when Melchisedec met him § II Now because this is our last re-encounter in this conflict Paul in the speciall of Tithes the last passage of all Scripture touching Tithes yea our A and â— reuiuing as by a circular course our neuer dying Melchis in our eternal Verity Christ wherein almost each word may goe for an argument we must therefore pierce a little more deeply in it by helpe of the same Spirit that proposeth it vnto vs and that so briefely as may be First then of his End next of his forme of arguing in this Chapter The chiefe End of this Epistle being to proue Christ our al-sufficient Sauiour King Prophet and Priest figured by the Law whose Ceremonies must therfore cease he handleth in this Chapter his Priest-hood only His course in arguing goeth from the Types to their Verities in a most perfect comparison both in simili and dissâ—mili The Types are two-fold the one moral perpetuall Melchisedec The other ceremonial and temporall Leui. Their natures are either simple in themselues or in Relation to their Verities Their Simple nature is that the Morall Type is noted heere with no Ceremoniall action for no such thing had he in him and the Ceremoniall Type with nothing Morall as he is compared heere to Christ in simili For though he also Tithed a Morall action yet it holdeth heere but in dissimili Their Relatiue nature with their Verities is of two § III considerations one from the matter of their actions Types how to be matched with their Verities another from the manner or their Orders In matter they hold both thus Whatsoeuer the Types did as Types the Verity must doe or answere being rightly matched as Aaron sacrificed Ergo so must Christ Aaron sacrificed with blood Ergo so must Christ But not Aaron sacrificed Bullocks Ergo so must Christ Our Golden rule in this is to goe no further then Scripture clearely leadeth vs and not from silence of the Apostles or priuatiue speeches to impose a positiue sacrifice of the Masse vpon Christ In manner or Order they hold not so Aarons and Melchisedecs Orders for whatsoeuer Christ did answering to Aaron yet that same did Christ after Melchisedecs Manner and Order not Aarons So that ONCE recorded only of Melchisedecs actions signifieth in Christ EVER and OFTEN to bee done and that OFTEN of Aarons actions signifieth in Christ ONCE onely yet that same ONCE ALL-sufficient in Melchisedecs Order For Perfection and Imperfection Perpetuitie and perishing are the Essentiall differences of their Orders So Christ in Melchisedecs Order perfected both Orders an heauenly difference and worthy to bee obserued Hebr. 7.8 9 10. chap. being fully cleared by the Apostle opposing that two thousand yeeres yeerely offering of Aaron to that One and Al-sufficient of CHRISTS And that ONCE blessing of Melchisedec of Abraham to that Euer blessing of CHRIST of Abraham and his posteritie Our conclusions then go thus through this Epistle from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Melchisedec to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Christ and from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Aaron to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Christ for these are the Apostles owne notes Againe hundrethes of Aarons with thousands of his associates thousands of yeeres and millions of redoubled actions binde but only Christ and Christ onely once they binde not the Ministery of the Gospell belonging to Christs Priest-hood But Melchisedecs one onely blessing designing his Priest-hood bindeth Christ euer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all his Ministery euer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 May we not hereupon inferre then that if Melchisedecs seruice binde our Ministery his maintenance must also be due to them We see then that Vnity or Pluralitie is not euer requisite to passe alike betweene Types and Verities either in Person or action for One as is said may argue thousands and thousands but One otherwise we shal roue to Rome-ward § IV Of these grounds then will it follow that whatsoeuer the Apostle vseth as a Medium to draw on any conclusion from these Types to their Verities it must bee euen as the Types either a Morall or a Ceremoniall thing and the conclusion must follow the nature of the Medium for Aarons sacrifice being Ceremoniall cannot bind a Morall Conclusion on Christ or his Ministery and consequently Tithing being vsed here as a Medium of a Morall and perpetuall Conclusion must it selfe be also Moral and perpetuall as by a true Analysis of our Apostles purpose in the texts cited shall plainly appeare CHAP. V. This Analysis proueth Christs Priest-hood more excellent then Leuies His proofes are from the prerogatiue of Person Blessing and Tithing THe Apostle will proue in those first eleuen verses § I Melchisedecs Order of Priest-hood whereof Christ was the onely High Priest and perfection to be farre aboue and better then the Order of Aaron and Leui and so in it selfe onely al-sufficient He setteth downe first his Priest-hood till the fourth verse then the Collation His Priesthood in two points Function and Order Melchisedecs endlesse Priesthood His Function vers 1. He was a Priest and blessed Abraham He was also accepted and acknowledged as a Priest vers 2. Because Abraham gaue him Tithes of all These two points are the summe and perfection of peaceably setled Priest-hood For Blessing after this sort heere being Real and exhibitiue is the End and perfection of all Priest-hood and Priestly Office for that Legall forme of blessing vnder Leui Num. 6.23 is but as a prayer for Blessing as we yet vse to this day and had no Ceremonie it And againe to giue Tithes as did Abraham heere is the most proper testification of our due obedience to Christs Ministers the very fruits of our faith And this for his Function Next vers 3. commeth his Order Dignitie and Excellency § II thereof Without Father Mother Kindred Beginning Ending like the Sonne of God Remaineth a Priest for euer Those strange notes must be applied and vnderstood as well
Law The very selfe-same Priest-hood vnder the Gospell after the Law and yet they will thrust out Tithing as onely Iewish though the Priest-hood belong also to the Gospell and Gentiles But say we had no more but that Vis Exemplaris from the Iudicials of Moses whence I pray you deriue you your Exemplar vertue of taking Tithes and then giuing them back to the Laytie by Impropriations Annexations Erections Compositions Assignations Infeodations Patronages and all that Hotch-potch of Hells hatching Did euer the Iudiciall Lawes of the Iewes giue you any such Vis Exemplaris They gaue Tithes to the Lords Leuites but you to Lords Laickes â—ye for shame Indeede it is Vis vix Exemplaris a Violence without any Example And that Scripture examples in such cases doe binde vs is cleare by all Scripture The Acts of the Apostles are all but Examples yet all binde the Church in things incitable and ordinary Christ in washing his Disciples feete said Hee left them an example Yea Paul speaking of things to be auoided by vs saith those things were written for Examples to forebeares and admonitions to vs 1. Cor. 10. But to speake home In things euer and ordinarly done in Gods seruice before Law euer vnder Law and euer to be done till the end of the World as is Maintenance for Gods Ministery what shall bind vs but the continuall Practises and Precepts recorded for our vse in the Booke of God Shall the Church then as they speake without either example or Law wander in the wildernesse of her owne wantonnesse and because God from all beginning hath ordained a Tenth for himselfe and his Ministerie Shee Shee forsooth will giue him a Ninth but no feare of this or Eleuenth or what Shee liketh What a proude insolence is this But alasse When we shall aske those Doctors what they call their Church heere that may so at her fancie dispose of the quota for Gods Ministers how pitifully shall they be plunged in the puddle of their new Positions For if we speake in precise Scripture Language Church is often taken for the Flockes considered apart from their Pastors but neuer for their Pastors apart from them If they make this their Church then they giue the onely people the power of appointing the quota being the partie obliged to pay Now this is against the very Character of Nature they talke so much of If by Church they vnd rstand the Clergie the Ministerie as vsually is now done This were to giue the onely Labourer power to prescribe his owne Wages against the Character of Nature too If they ioyne both parties for the Church then it must goe ex mutuo Pacto But this Pactum sends God a packing who is the onely Master Wager Master of the Waged and Wag s too who taketh first to himselfe the VVages and th n by the Calling conferreth them on his owne Ministery So to conclude He that will defraude God of his Tithing frustrate let him be of Gods Blessing As for that second opinion in Diuinitie M. Selden chap. 7. §. 4. from the Schoolemen That Tithes were meere Almes c. related by M. Selden I thinke verily such Schoole-Diuines merite no better Almes then to be turned for euer in Fratres Mendicantes who hauing so farre strayed from true Diuinitie as they haue euen lost the common Principles with Brutish Naturalitie which as hath beene said will euen vse a kinde of Commutatiue Iustice and retribution Though they quite the quota of Tithes yet why cast they off that Character of Nature and Maxime of Scripture The Worke man is worthie of his Wages Then if Gods VVages No Schoole-Almes and if Almes no VVages M. Selden cha 7. §. ver The third Opinion saith Selden is of those who agree with the Canonists that the right of the quota of Tithes is immediately from the Morall or Diuine Naturall Law some impudently vrging a commaundement giuen to Adam others of them prouidently restraining all their Arguments to such grounds for the conclusion as many may bee had out of Abrahams example referred to the application of it in the Epistle to the Hebrewes but others also not circumspectly taking in the Leuiticall Commandements of Tithes for their most sufficient authoritie Here haue wee three grounds alleadged Historically for proofe of Tithes to be Diuine or Morall I begin with the last and so vpward because I minde to speake most of the first as M. Selden doth Touching the Leuiticall Law I knewe neuer any writing directly of this subiect that set their greatest force from Leui at lest not I. Touching the second ground from Abrahams example adde also Iacobs Vow applied in the Epistle to the Hebrewes wherein indeede standeth our maine force and which both in our Treatise and this Appendix wee haue vrged Simply as God hath furnished I am sorry M. Selden did not as amply Historifie the reasons drawne from it as hee hath done for the first ground being but weake and that hee gaue not also his owne verdict of it which I hope had beene with the Veritie as hee hath done against the first ground thus M. Selden Ibid. For the first kinde saith he that talke of Adam I thinke indeede that in the time of this light of learning none haue durst uenture their credits vpon such fancies Yet that it was some opinion that had at least in pretence many authours in the Church of England in the blinder time of our Auncesters I thence collect for that in a penitentiall made for direction of Priests in auricular Confession and written as my Copy is about Henry the the sixt the Priestes examination and aduise vpon the point of Tithing is thus expressed Hast thou truely done thy Tithings and Offerings to God and holy Chirch Thou shalt vnderstand that at the beginning of the world when there was but O O man that is to say ADAM God charged him that he should truly of all maner of things giue God the tenth part and bad him that he should teach his children to doe the same maner and so foorth all men vnto the worlds end And for as much as there was that time no man to receiue it of him in the name of holy Church and God would not that they should haue but nine parts Therefore he commanded him that of euery thing the Tithe part should be burnt I finde that afterward Adam had two sonnes Caine and Abel Abel Tithed truely and of the best Caine Tithed falsely and of the worst at last the false Tither Caine slough Abel his brother For he blamed him and said that he Tithed euill wherefore our Lord God accursed Caine and all the earth in his worke So yee may see that false Tithing was the cause of the first manslaughter that euer was and it was the cause that God cursed the earth It is literally transcribed as I finde it This for that penitentiall But whereas Historiall equitie required that the allegations for both parts of
Num. 18.21 To Leui and for inheritance And Leuit. 27.30.31 he is speciall of what All the Tithe of the Land of the seede of the ground of the fruits of the trees of bullock and sheepe and of all that goeth vnder the rod. Heere now are those ordinary yeerely Tithes the Naturall Ante Legem sub Lege post Legem Legall and Euangelicall maintenance of Gods worship and are set downe heere by Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euer in the first roome and onely priuiledged with that high title The Lords inheritance § III To discerne them liuely from the rest remember these generall notes as they occurre in Scripture with Tithes Three notes whereby to discerne Tithes First Of all Secondly Yeere by yeere Thirdly All places and persons All those shalt thou euer finde to agree with and onely with Tithes inheritance the restrictions import euer some Ceremonie as in their particuler collation shall plainely appeare Solution To the argument then Tithes must bee brought to the Temple Ergo Ceremoniall It is cleare that Tithes inheritance as in the first sort were neuer all tied to the Temple nor Ierusalem because all the Leuites were not tied to Ierusalem but liued abroad many of them for reading of the Law vnto the people euery Sabbath day in their Synagogues Act. 15.21 and so must haue had their sustenance where they serued That they stayed not all still at Ierusalem is cleared by their turnes according to their lots 1. Chron. 24.5 c. And All the Leuites of the holy Citie were 284. and the residue of Israel Neh. 11.18.20 of the Priests and of the Leuites dwelt in the Cities of Iudah euery one in his inheritance Now that they drew their sustenance in the places of their seruice it is also cleare Neh. 10.37.38 That the Leuites might haue their Tithes in all the Cities of our trauell c. But the examination of the second sort will cleare this more § IV The second sort of Tithes followeth in the next verse The second sort of Tithes Vers 23. Deut. 12.6.17.11 c. Vers 24. And thou shalt eate before the Lord thy God in the place where hee shall choose to cause his name to dwell there the Tithe of thy corne of thy wine and of thine oyle c. And if this way be too long for thee so that thou art not able to cary it because the place is farre from thee c. Vers 25. Then shalt thou make it in money and binde vp the money in thy hand and goe vnto the place c. Vers 26. And thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoeuer thy heart desireth whether it be oxe or sheepe c. And the Leuite that is within thy gates shalt thou not forsake c. Vers 27. These Tithes cannot be Inheritance seeing they agree onely with one of our three generall notes proper thereto viz. Yeerely They are not of All but of onely Corne Wine and Oyle as vers 23. They are not for All places but onely at Ierusalem vers 24.25 And this exchange of them into money vers 24. for the longnesse of the iourney and difficultie of carriage proueth clearely that Tithes inheritance being of All things could not be first carried to Ierusalem and thence backe againe to be diuided among the dispersed Leuites a Lyra on Deut. 12.6.17 Lyra and b Iunius in Analysi sua contra quam priu◠cum Tremellio others would confound these two verses and make both but one tithing But marke how the text it selfe distinguisheth them vers 22. Thou shalt giue of All Heere the Giuer is the Israelites the Taker then must be the Leuites Vers 23. Thou shalt eate meaning the Israelites as of before So Giuing Taking and Eating cannot meete In eadem personâ And Num. 18.21 Tithes are called Haereditas vestra meaning the onely Leuites therefore the Israelites cannot be commanded heere to eate them And beside Scripture wee oppose to Lyra Iosephus saying Amiq. lib. 4. pag. 91. A. D. Let the tenth part of the fruits besides them that are due to the Priests and Leuites which you are accustomed to sell in y ur markets being reduced into readie money bee spent in sacrifices and banquets in the sacred Citie And Besides the two tenthes which I commanded you yeerely to pay the one to the Leuites and the other for your Festiuals you shall for euery third yeere annex a third to bee distributed amongst the poore to women widdowes and orphants Cap. 1.7.8.9 Againe Tobit another Iew also payeth them all three as three distinct Tithings heere therefore olde Lyra begate a yong error § V That place then of Malachi Bring yee all the Tithes into the Storehouse Genera singulorum non singula generum This vniuersall note All must bee All such Tithes as the Law appointed to be brought vp of each sort not the whole Tithes of all sorts This limitation of All is so agreeable to precepts of Logick and so frequent in practise of Scripture as it needeth no proofe 2. Chro. 31.11 Malachies Store-house then and Ezekias Chambers were both one the Chambers were built for the great heapes of Tithes the heapes were for the Feasts the Feasts for the Lords worship Deut. 16.16 And if this course had not been held seeing all the males poore and rich must haue been thrise a yeere at Ierusalem they had rather fasted then feasted Now the remainder of those heapes were for those that either stayed still at Ierusalem or as came out of their Cities to worshippe at Ierusalem as Deut. 18.6 who all this time were not to liue of the sale of their owne patrimonies abroad Deut. 18.7.8 but had a portion with their brethren staying at Ierusalem and serued as they did keeping each one both the Family he was of and charge they were appointed vnto as a Gershonite to a Gershonite and so forth the distribution of those Tithes was by chosen men to that purpose appointed in that same place 2. Chron. 31.12 c. of the Leuites themselues § VI The third sort of Tithes in vers 28. At the end of three yeeres thou shalt bring foorth all the Tithes of thine encrease the same yeere Third sort of Tithes and lay it vp within thy gates Then the Leuite shall come Deut 14. Amos 4.4 still the Leuite because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee and the stranger and the fatherlesse and the widdow which are within thy gates and shall eate and be filled Now seeing all inheritance is Yeerely and these Tithes but each third yeere they cannot be Gods inheritance Whatsoeuer Ceremony may be in the time tertio anno yet the perpetuall equitie of those Tithes ratione finis vsus holdeth still For as Lyra alledgeth them to haue been instituted for preseruation of the poore from eating in necessity the meats of the Gentiles Idols So haue the
Apostles by diuers precepts prouided for the poore but chiefly for those of the houshold of Faith Gal. 6.10 1. Cor. 16.1 and late Writers hold this to answere those Tithes for the poore This was called afterward by Moyses Deut. 26.12 The yeere of Tithing because this third yeere encreased one Tithing aboue the other two And such were Tithes payed by the Israelites followeth now The fourth sort of Tithes payed by Leui the Tithe-taker § VII to Aaron and his successors High-Priests The fourth sort of Tithes Num. 18.26 28. When ye shall take of the children of Israel the Tithes which I haue giuen you of them for your inheritance then shall yee tâ—ke an Heaue-offering of the same for the Lord the tenth part of the Tithe Behold heere Tithe-takers become Tithe-payers and so these Tithes cannot bee the Lords inheritance being defectiue in two of the generall notes agreeing to Gods inheritance viz. Person and Place in Person Vers 28. because they are payed by the Ordinary Officiar of receiuing Inheritance Leui to the onely High-Priest In Place Nehem. 10. â—8 And the Leuites shall bring vp the tenth part of the Tithes vnto the house of our God vnto the Chambers of the Treasure-house Now if all Tithes were brought vp to Ierusalem to what end should hee heere command to bring vp the tenth of them again Al this is ceremonial But marke yet Then it shall be counted vnto the Leuites as the encrease of the corne-floore or as the encrease of the wine-presse Then Tithes inheritance can no way be Ceremonial for heere they are to the Leuites euen as the Land was to the other Tribes And Leui giueth offrings viz. as first fruits Num. 18.11.12.13.27.29 Exod. 22.29 and so doth Ierome translate this place Primitias out of his Tithes as if they were his very Barnes his Wine-presse euen as the other Tribes did of their Barnes and Wine-presses Their offerings were all Ceremoniall their Inheritances not § VIII Obiect If they obiect The Policie and possessions of the whole Tribes were but Temporall and ended at Christ Ergo So must Leuies Inheritance Sol. We answere both ended on their parts but neither on Gods God hath yet the same generall interest in Canaan that he had from the beginning for Domini est terra plenitudo eius And the same peculiar interest in his owne patrimonie separated to his owne seruice If they yet reply The other Tribes were onely Temporall but Leui both Temporall and Ceremoniall Ergo So were Tithes his Inheritance Heere a peece of sacrilegious Sophistrie to conclude from His Priest-hood to Gods Patrimonie They are not of one nature nor both the sonnes of one father His Priesthood bred onely by the Law This Patrimonie long before both Leui and the Law His Priest-hood bringeth with it only Aetatem but this inheritance Aeternitatem That sort of Priest-hood was Leuies onely this sort of Patrimony was his also but not onely his And so in the diuision of the Land God said not This shall be Leuies inheritance Num. 18.20.22.24 but I am his inheritance And I haue giuen not I will giue Leui all the Tithes They were but Leuies secundariô they were and are the Lords primò Hauing setled the Tenth of Tithes in Aaron he subioyneth § IX vers 31. And yee shall eate it in all places c. This IT cannot be the Tenthes of Tithes as some gesse but it must bee Tithes Inheritance For first otho the Hebrew Pronoune is Masculine and must be Relatiue to Prouentuâ— area in the former verse which in the remainder was Tithes inheritance as the learned may perceiue Secondly Yee shall eate is spoken here to the Leuites but what reason had they to eate the Priests portions which themselues were to pay them Thirdly In all places cannot agree with things once tied to Aaron and Ierusalem vnlesse we dreame they carried them backe againe to all the places of their residence thorow the Countrey The true meaning then is this As the other Tribes must first giue God his Tithes before they might vse their nine parts so must Leui giue to Aaron his Tithe before hee put hand to Tithes his Inheritance And this done Tithes Inheritance were accounted vnto Leui as the encrease of their owne Barnes and Wine-presses though they had none and so they might eat them in all the places of their trauels Thus haue we brought these confounded matters to a method and sent each Tithe to his owne place But wonder it is to see the strange subtiltie of Sacrilege seated once in the hearts of men how they can alledge those texts Bring all the Tithes to Gods house to conclude this Bring no more Tithes to the Lords house for doubtlesse if it were not more for loue of the Tithes then the Text this Theologie should neuer be so frequent CHAP. IV. Tithes not Ceremoniall of their nature How to discerne a Morall offering from a Ceremoniall Tithes a Morall offering § I THe Text we see is full of Tithes and Tithes full of tentation to hungrie-zealed men Sacri Sacra fames so that we shall sooner solue their Syllogismes then dissolue their Sacrilege From the Institution of Tithes to Leui they reason two wayes First from their Nature Secondly from their End From their Nature thus All offerings of the children of Israel vnder the Law were Ceremoniall Tithes euen Inheritance were offered by Israel vnder the Law Ergo Tithes Inheritance were Ceremoniall And consequently cannot be due to the Gospell The Proposition they take The Assumption they proue thus For the Tithes of the Children of Israel Num. 18.24 which they shall offer as an Offering some reade Heaue-offering vnto the Lord I haue giuen the Leuites for an Inheritance Tithes by nature not Ceremoniall We confesse the Assumption truely read But because of the diuersitie of Translations we must looke vnto the Originall word and distinguish it in the Proposition Two Hebrew words Rum and Nuph are vsed by Moyses in diuers sorts of offerings the first signifying to Heaue or lift vp the second to Waue or shake to and fro Sometimes these words retaine their simple and common signification though the subiect bee sacred sometimes they import a meere Leuiticall Ceremony tending and ending in Christ For example Exod. 14.16 Lift thou vp thy rod c. Deut. 8.14 Lest thy heart be lifted vp c. Here is the first word without any Ceremony For the second word Exod. 20.25 In building the Altar a thing Deut. 27.5 both Sacred and Ceremoniall hee forbiddeth to lift vp or shake a Masons toole or instrument for hewing of it Heere was no Ceremonial end in Lifting but only God would haue these Altars during the time of their peregrination so built as they might be easily ouerthrowne and not serue for the superstition of others after their departure Exod. 35.21 c. Are both words vsed How to discerne the Ceremony and
Kings dale Rom. 4.13 Parties Royall Melchisedec a King and Abraham heire of the world Melchisedec a Priest of the most high God All pâ—sse on Royall points and Abraham Patriarch of all the Faithfull Witnesse Royall The King of Sodom vers 21. Recorder or Clerke Royall viz. Moyses Gouernour of all Gods people Reuiued by a Royall Prophet Dauid Psal 110.4 and re-established in the most Royall dayes of the Gospell Hebr. 7.1 c. May wee not iustly say heere then that Heauen and Earth entred a league When as the true Melchisedec Possessor of Heauen and Earth first King of Iustice then King of Peace blessed Abraham and all his seede the heires of the world When shall this bargaine haue an end On whose part shall it faile So long as Earth is inhabited and by Abrahams of-spring manured so long must God haue his Inheritance Tithes Two Lessons heere not to be neglected in the order § II of this Historie Melchisedec Iustice Peace Religion and Tithing goeth before King of Salem that is Iustice and Righteousnesse goe before Peace and both goe before Tithes that is without Peace no setled Religion Then Peace is the daughter of Iustice and Religion the Garland of Peace Wheresoeuer then the Iust God procureth vs Peace wee ought to settle Religion in all points peaceably And where the Power and Peace is greatest there should Religion be purest not Poorest For Religion once rent Peace is violated and Peace violated breaketh the rod of Iustice This course began heere Abraham our Patriarch and patterne with Melchisedec so soone as by Gods Iustice he was made peaceable from those Kings his enemies he heareth Melchisedec Gods Messenger reuerently he rendereth him his due Tithes thankfully which two points paint out to vs generally the substance of all Religion This before the Law This course kept Moses at Gods command giuing a Law that when they should by Gods Iustice become peaceable in Canaan they should then haue Religion peaceable onely one worship of one God and pay to his Officiars his inheritance Tithes And this course followed all the good Kings vnder the Law So wee would know why this course may not also hold after the Law For heere haue wee the Corner-stone of all our building viz. That how soone a Priest is named so soone are Tithes named for his maintenance So Tithes and Priest-hood in generall not Legall Priest-hood are twins of one time They are of Nature Reciprocate that is the one cannot be without the other whereupon these two things will follow Tithes and Seculars neuer matched First That no marriage can be betweene any Secular person and Tithes Secondly That so long as God hath Officiars of his worship on Earth so long must Tithes be their Inheritance § III Obiect Against all this is obiected That before this Historie of Melchisedec our first right the world was some two thousand yeeres old and all this while was God worshipped yet all this while not a word of Tithes And why may not the last age of the world worshippe God without Tithes as well as the first And so Tithes bee onely the Lords Inheritance during the Law that first and onely named them so Sol. Resp First heere is a double question One concerning Tithes another concerning their title Inheritance A generall answere for both all things beginning together The Decalogue came with the Law but must not end with it See part 2. cap. 7. ad fin are not bound to end together and touching the Law it holdeth but in things Ceremoniall for Quod Morale est Mortale non est reade lib. 2. cap. 7. Secondly concerning Tithes wee must marke two things First As they are the goods of men generally Secondly The precise number in quoto as they are a Tenth of their goods And so these first two thousand yeeres though the quota pars Tithes for the first two thousand yeeres was not nominatim defined yet Res ipsa were to the same end employed and so God still worshipped Otherwise wee may also conclude against all the other foure generall points of Diuine seruice viz. God was not for two thousand yeeres worshipped because no Priest named no times affixed no place designed and no speciall forme prescribed and so by a like consequence wee may liue after the Law without all these as before it But we say all fiue were then re ipsa though more confused according to the time The first-borne then discharged the Priests office and the best of all their goods serued them for Tithes Gen. 18.19 So Cain and Abel the Church being then as in her cradle were taught by Tradition before Law Lib. 2. cap. 7. ad fin or by the Law of Nature that whatsoeuer the Earth yeelded vnto them a part yea a chiefe part thereof was due to the Lords peculiar worshippe And so each of them brought out vnto the Lord according to his labours Their Labours euen at first went as large as did Church maintenance vnder the Law out of all the fruits of the ground from Cains tillage And of all the bestiall of the field from Abels pasturage Now he who can discerne in these two brothers the Priest from the Laick may as easily sequestrate their portions Morall and Ceremoniall heere went all in a manner confusedly Tithes then are in quoto precisely named as soone as the Officiar on whom they euer depend is precisely named and both long before the Law And so for Tithes Now touching this title How Tithes may bee held § IV Gods Inheritance during the first two thousand yeeres Haue Inheritance seeing the Law only calleth them so To this we answer It followeth not A thing is not that which it is because it is not named as it is As to say Abraham was no Priest because he is not called by the name of Priest for whosoeuer sacrificed as first borne were Priests It is vsuall in Scripture sometimes to name things peculiarly before they be indeed so as the wandring Tabernacle and the Stone which Iacob erected as a piller Gen. 28.20.21.22 1. Sam. 1.7.9 were both named House of God but were not so till Salomon built there the Temple And sometime againe things are in effect that which they beare no name of till long after as Melchisedec heere was a Priest of an Order but yet not named of an Order till Dauid rose and also Tithes or that which supplied their roome were not called Inheritance til the owne fit time Yet that same right which God had from al beginning in mens goods was euer in effect Gods Inheritance And as the Mysteries of saluation began to be more cleared as heere where God presented to Abraham a Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so he maketh Abraham to offer his goods also Orderly calling them at first Tithes And againe at such times as the Land was to be diuided and Iustice had begotten perfect Peace and that the name of Inheritance could
then are the fruits for Christ setled The Magistrates in Pauls time were not Christians 2. Chron. 31. on whose power euen vnder the Law depended much the inbringing of Tithes Neither were Tithes giuen Leui straight with his seruice neither yet with the Law of Tithes The Law came Numb 18. before they were come to Canaan long but Tithes came not till the whole Land was diuided and enioyed in peace they not so much as entred the Land more then 50. yeeres after all this See Tremel Arg. on Num. Iosua CHAP. III. Pauls Generall Doctrine 1. Cor. 9. obiected against Tithes but proued for Tithes § I MAINTENANCE thus in the Generall concluded euen with consent the Question still remaineth of the Quota what the speciall must bee Paul say they neuer meant Tithes Why Because he is still onely in generall doctrine drawing conclusions from equities 1. Cor. 9. and examples where in Ten words he might more easily haue taken vp Tithes if hee had found it good Againe the matter and ground holdeth euer A Maintenance must be But the number most times includeth a Ceremony so now any other proportion as 9.8 c. may be now appointed as well as a Tenth part We answere The special of Tithes was from their beginning good til very neere Pauls Conuersion and therfore all his dispute must either end in Tithes or some other special If in Tithes then was it enough for him to refer vs to the former generals of Scripture whose special assumptions are so many times mentioned But if hee had meant any alteration then was he bound to a plainnes Act. 20 27 seeing hee saith I haue kept backe nothing but haue shewed you all the counsels of God And to proue his meaning must be Tithes let vs ponder a little these his positions till we come to plainer language He hath here a double dispute with his Corinthians one from equity of Ciuill examples The other from authoritie of former Scripture From Ciuill vers 7. in three points one from Warfaring 1. Cor. 9.7 two from Husbandrie all to one generall end Thus shortly No man goeth to warre without wages Planteth a Vine § II without eating of the fruit Feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milke We fight for you we plant you we feed you Ergo Yee must furnish vs Wages Fruite and Milke This Syllogisme will bring vs to a double certaintie A Simili first of Masters secondly of Meanes Of Masters who is great Captaine of the Warres and who great Husband of the Labours Whereupon dependeth who are Souldiers and who labourers and so who are true Debters who Creditors The great Captaine is he who sendeth out his Souldiers § III the King not they whom by armes he defendeth MaintenaÌ„ce dependeth on the Master Luke 14.31 The great Husband he who setteth his seruants a work not the Vines laboured The great Shephead not the Sheepe fed This for the Masters For Meanes What and Whom to craue What for no souldier entereth himselfe waged till hee first know his wages Whom that is either Immediat or Mediat Immediat the great Captaine and King that wageth him Mediat when the souldier is cast ouer vpon the Kings people or Inheritance fought for And so in Husbandrie as Christ expoundeth his owne parable of the Housholder Matth. 20. To apply all then to our matter Our great Captaine is God Christ onely and so our Great Husband The Souldiers and Labourers not all Christians for these bee his Inheritance fought for are his Ministerie as heere Paul saith So I fight not as one that beateth the ayre Vers 26. The battell is continuall the labours endlesse therefore the wages must be perpetuall not as Ciuil warres and Wages that haue ends and vicissitudes for this Sacred Souldier must neuer leaue his calling Put hand to the plough Luke 9.62 and looke backe againe The Immediat debtor of the wages is God the great Captaine and therefore when he called Leui he said I am Immediatly thine Inheritance Num. 18.20 The Mediat Debtor is Gods Inheritance fought for his people And therefore God said Vers 21. I haue giuen Leui the Tenth of all Israel for his Inheritance So these arguments of Paul from ciuill similitudes smell either of Tithes or of nothing Followeth Pauls dispute from authoritie of Scripture Say I those things according to man 1. Cor. 8.9 Sayeth not the Law the § IV same also Heere are his Positions two-fold one General The Law applied by Paul to the Gospel Deut. 25.4 another Speciall The General is It is written in the Law of Moses Thou shalt not mussell the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the corne Followeth his application Doth God take care for Oxen 1. Cor. 9.10 â—ither saith he it not altogether for our sakes For our sakes no doubt it is written Behold heere Paul saith this general precept of the Law was written altogether for him and his brethren Therefore whatsoeuer portion of Gods Inheritance was deriued to Leui. being still in God must bee still for Paul and his fellow-Leuites labourers of the word or shal we thinke Paul alledged the Law to conclude neither Idem nor Eiusmodi No Leui made no bargaine with Israel he had not his calling of them and therfore not his condition by then and seeing now no man Prince or people can call the Ministery no man must measure their Maintenance It is a meere clipping of Gods wings 1. Cor. 9.12 13.14 Now come to Pauls Specials Doe yee not know that they § V that performe the holy things eat of the holy thing or things of the Temple The people in this case are neuer the masters Ergo They ought neuer to modifie the seruants means And they which waite at the Altar are partakers with the Altar Followeth Pauls application So also hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospell should liue of the Gospell Then yet he spareth But I haue vsed none of these things Now I aske If Paul had not spared but pressed these Lawes what particular vse could he make of them Sacrifices he could not claime Ergo Tithes or nothing But let vs marke first heere the force of his comparison then the Phrase and Emphasis of his words The comparison must haue this forme As Leui liued by the Law so must our Ministery by the Gospell Leui liued of holy things by the Law Ergo Our Ministery must liue of holy things by the Gospell His phrase of speech first in his Proposition then in his Application In the Proposition he setteth downe two sorts of holy meanes a Moral and a Ceremonial described from the diuers sorts of the seruices for which they were due The Moral by Ministring the holy things a word for all ages and all places and this hee coupleth with words for Meanes of the like nature viz. To eate of the things of the Temple Now OF is a Note of Inheritance and he
dyed from their Office But there He that is Melchisedec of whom it is witnessed that hee liueth Melchisedec neither subiect to vicissitude admitteth companion nor euer maketh an end In summe then a Priest a Tithing How long a Priest so long a Tithing Melchisedec is for euer a Priest Ergo Must euer haue a Tithing And this for the Analysis of these former Scriptures and all that we haue of Tithes in the new Testament and in conscience it is enough if men had conscience enough to consider it But wee will yet more amplie apply all those things to our present purpose Abraham and Melchisedec both types § III All this action wee see betweene Melchisedec and Abraham is on both sides Typicall Melchisedec Typed Christ the head and Master and as a Priest of God all the Ministerie belonging to Christs Priest-hood Abraham Typed all the posteritie the seed of his faith as well as the seed of his flesh They be both Types of things perpetual Melchisedec of Christs Euer blessing of Abraham and all his seed Abraham of perpetual Tything for Christ in his Ministerie for himselfe and all his seede The one giueth Blessing that taketh Tithes The other taketh Blessing that giueth Tithes Giuing and Taking then are on both sides mutuall and reciprock both in Types and Verities Otherwise there should be no correspondence betweene Christs perpetuall Graces deriued to vs in Abraham vnlesse we be also bound to our perpetual thankfulnesse in Abraham And if Abraham can conuey the promises of Christs blessing to vs much more may he bind his own practise answering it vpon vs. These grounds then giue vs a double argument to proue Abrahams practise a sufficient promise and obligatory of his posteritie the first is from the person taker Melchisedec the other from the giuer Abraham From the taker thus Vers 8. Melchisedec taketh Tithes of whom it is witnessed that he liueth Now this witnessing properly § IV is onely true of Christ The Word indeed maketh Melchisedec Type liue for euer but our Melchisedec Christ after his rising appeared to his disciples diuers times eate and dranke with them and in end said Luke 24.48 Act. 2.32 3.15 Now yee are witnesses of these things So he rose and reigneth a Priest for euer and therefore is He that taketh Tithes and is witnessed to liue May I not iustly say then I will and before God I § V dare that the Spirit of God hath of purpose heere Tithing the onely proofe of perpetuall Tithing for proofe of this perpetuall Priest-hood drawne his conclusion from Tithing rather then Blessing though both will conclude a like because all men gape greedily for the blessing but be very sparing of Tithing No man will deny Christ to be a perpetuall blessing Priest but like nothing of his perpetuall Tithing And yet the Apostle saith not of Melchisedec He blesseth and liueth though it be most true but He taketh Tithes and liueth By Blessing he proueth his Maiority vers 7. but by Tithing he proueth his perpetuity vers 8. And yet both Tithing would proue the Maiority and Blessing the perpetuity if Paul had pleased Is not this done then of purpose Then if Blessing must hold being neglected in this conclusion how shall Tithing conclusionis ipsum medium be reiected If both were away then were he not Eternall Priest but Eternal man onely for nothing can argue Eternitie of Priest hood but some Eternal Priestly action Now all the actions recorded of Melchisedecs Priest-hood are onely Blessing and Tithing the former the Essence the later the maintenance of his Priest-hood and of these two Blessing decarded and by onely Tithing is concluded the perpetual Priest-hood of Melchisedec Is not this done of purpose And if Tithing and Blessing be not both of one nature in Time the Type cannot be perfectly Eternall And if we shall search the Apostle to the very marrow we shall find no other vse of this Proposition Melchisedec taketh Tithes and liueth and whether thou proue Tithing from liuing or Liuing from Tithing all is one and one thou must choose for the Apostles words must not be idle So long then as Leui liued he Tithed Ergo so long as Melchisedec liueth he Titheth But Melchisedec liueth for euer Ergo must Tithe for euer That Tithing and Liuing must dye and liue together is cleare by the Verbs vsed by the Apostle in both the types as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Leuits in the present time notwithstanding they were dead and gone therefore must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be supplied in praesenti to Melchisedec seeing he presently liueth These Propositions then are all reciprocke Melchisedec Blesseth and liueth Ergo He Liueth and Blesseth Againe Melchisedec Titheth and Liueth Ergo Hee Liueth and Titheth Leui lost his Tithes because he died not so much in § VI Person as from his Priest-hood Why Leui lost Tithes Death then in Leui must be applied to the same thing whereunto Life was applied in Melchisedec else the Antithesis were not Ad idem Priest-hood then in both is Subiectum of life and death an endlesse Priest-hood a dying Priest-hood For Melchisedecs re-entrie was not at the death of euery single Leuitical Priest but at the finall death of the whole Priest-hood The change of Law and the change of Priest-hood Leui then the Priest is dead and dyed with Christ but not the Person of Leui for doubtlesse many thousands of the Tribe of Leui liued long after Christ and perhaps do to this day as the other Tribes though without certaine note of distinction and although they could be distinguished yet could they not challenge their former Priest-hood Their Priest-hood therefore is dead not their Persons Indeede the daily dying of the High-Priests one after another is the Apostles chiefe proofe of the imperfection of their Priest-hood euen while it was good by Gods Law Vers 23. they were many in one Priest-hood because death suffered them not to stay He remaineth for euer and therefore hath an endlesse Priest-hood Neither lost Leui his Priest-hood as some guesse as § VII out of Gods Iustice for his wicked abusing of it Why Leui lost his Priest hood when as both Priest and Priest-hood became Mercenary as the Macabees and Iosephus History beare record and therefore the Law changed and the Priest-hood translated iustly from Leui to Iudah No it was the course and counsell of God yea his reuealed decree from all beginning for the saluation of mankinde that these Priest-hoods should be subiect to these Periods so that Leui had hee liued neuer so lawfully or legally yet must hee haue left the place to his Master Melchisedec though his sinnes had not deserued it his soule had desired it And Leui learning this may yet be admitted to Melchisedecs Priest-hood waite on the Altar challenge his Maintenance not vi Leuiticâ but virtute Euangelica hee must either accept the Office or pay the fees Sweete and heauenly mysteries
to such as bee of humble and sanctified hearts Leui then is dead and no man denieth it Melchisedec is risen and some men beleeue it but that hee rose to take Tithes most men laugh at it We will assay therefore first after Leui and from Melchisedec to draw them vpon Christ secondly to deriue them from him to his Ministerie § VIII Paul hauing in the first ten verses compared Melchisedec with Aaron The Type applied by Paul to Christ Anagogice both as Christs Types He proueth vers 11. the weaknesse of Aarons Priest-hood because it was needfull that there should rise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Aaron both in Person Tribe and Order But from Melchisedec in Person onely not Order Then vers 13. commeth on the maine Conclusion by an Anagogicall application binding these prerogatiues of Melchisedec considered in the simple nature of a Type by a relatiue force on the Verity Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For hee of whom these things are spoken c. I thinke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be sufficiently expressed by Of whom for this is true English for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as chap. 5.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of whom we haue much to say All then that is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of Melchisedec is heere by the Apostle inferred and transferred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to vnto and vpon Christ The construction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here with the Accusatiue case signifieth motum remouing or conueyance from one point to another So was Melchisedec but Christs Atturney heere to take seasing of his Patrimony and so must it not remaine still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but returne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All these prerogatiual Prepositions end euer in Christ as first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For whom and by whom all things were Heb. 2.10 Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In whom and to whom all must rest and be referred Colos 1.16 17. Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whom all things of Melchisedec were spoken Heb. 5.11 And lastly heere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on whom all rights titles and possessions prefigured by his Type must bee transferred for euer Then we reason thus from Pauls grounds Whatsouer is spoken heere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Melchisedec typically is transferred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto Christ his veritie Tithing is spoken of Melchisedec typically Ergo Tithes must be transferred vnto Christ his verity Let any Christian shew wherein this doctrine faileth § IX But heere they say there is much made of nothing Tithes why touched hereby Paul The Apostle intended not heere to prooue Tithes due but to settle Christs Priest-hood as perpetual And so say I to Doubtlesse he neuer doubted that Tithes were due neither doubted they with whom he had to do therefore he taketh it with them pro confesso and vseth it as his onely Medium to resolue their doubt of the perpetuitie of Christs Priesthood Hee taketh Tithes hee liueth Ergo An eternall Priest Leui was but a dying Tithing Priest All things recorded of our Melchisedec are still truely affirmed in praesenti Hee Blesseth hee Titheth hee liueth his sacrifice endureth for euer Of Leui not one of all now true And when he euen liued all were not in all respects true for he daily dyed in Person and in end died quite from his office therefore in both imperfect His actions were daily redoubled and where euer repetition must be there can be no perfection Our Melchisedec had neuer a fellow made neuer a default therefore Al-sufficient This for drawing of Tithes vpon Christ § X Now in deriuing them from him we meete with a Cauil How Christ is said to take Tithes we layd for a ground chap. 4. That whatsoeuer the Type did that must the veritie also doe Ergo Seeing Melchisedec tooke Tithes Christ must take Tithes But Christ neuer Tithed c. For answer Christ taketh Tithes now even as his Father tooke them before him viz. by their Officers What was Essential in the Priest-hood of Mechisedec that Christ performeth euer really viz. Blessing But Tithing is onely a proprietie not of the Essence of Priest-hood and so bindeth not the veritie in his owne person for a workeman is not defined by his wages So in this point the Law of al similitudes must haue place nullum simile in omni simile And seeing Christ taketh almes being giuen to the poore may he not take his owne Patrimonie by his owne Officers whom he hath made his Ministers his Ambassadors putting the word of reconciliation in their mouthes 2 Cor. 5.19.20 and so his Inheritance in their hands Thus farre for the APostles arguments from the person taker Melchisedec Followeth from the giuer Abraham CHAP. VII Perpetuall Tithing prooued also by Abrahams deede A comparison betweene Melchisedec Leui and our Ministery The Conclusion of the lawfulnesse of Tithes MELCHISEDEC then Taketh Tithes and Liueth § I But a liuing taker must also haue a liuing giuer Abraham bindeth vs to Tithes Therefore the Apostle telleth vs heere That Abraham with his whole seede must be the Aequiualent giuer lasting as long as Melchisedecs Priest-hood and so Abraham giueth Tithes and liueth That all Abrahams posteritie make vp the person of the Giuer it is thus cleared And to say as the thing is Hebr. 7.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leui also which receiueth Tithes was Tithed in Abraham Then if Leui was Tithed I hope the other eleuen Tribes his brethren scaped not free But let vs heare why was Leui Tithed Because he was yet in the loynes of his Father Abraham when Melchisedec met him Then all that dare call Abraham Father euen as well that issued out of the loynes of his flesh as that are entered in the fellowship of his Faith are all heere in Abraham Tithed Flesh bringeth in the whole Tribes for they issued out of his very loynes as did Leui Faith includeth all the Families of the Earth as Abrahams seede whereby the poorest Lazarus leapeth to Abrahams bosome And that Faith hath no lesse force heere then Flesh it is cleare by the fourth and sixt verses Abraham the Patriarch was Tithed who had the Promises Then if he be a Father of our Faith let him be also the Father of our thankfulnes If we be Blessed in him let vs also be Tithed in him else our faith is but dead and he is not our Father But what if the seede of his Faith be more bound § II then the seed of his onely Flesh Rom. 9.7 8. Seed of Faith more bound to Tithes then Seede of Flesh Saith not Paul All are not Israel that are of Israel neither are they all children because they are the seede of Abraham c. that is they which are the children of the flesh are not the children of God But the children of the Promise are counted for the Seede Then seeing Melchisedec blessed Abraham our
is said left the distribution to Leui himselfe Gods end and Mans are heere quite contrary God gaue Leui a Maintenance from himself and free of mans option to be lifted before man should meddle with any thing to no other end Hebr. 13.17 but as Hezekiah said That they might be encouraged in the Law of the Lord not to please the Laird or my Lord. That he should not stumble at such a huge-stone as How shall I liue That they may dâ—e it with ioy and not with greefe Deut. 33.9 Hee must misknow Father and Mother Brothers his owne childe when Gods cause is in hand as he did Exod. 32.27 28. Philip. 3.8 He must count all things dung for Christs sake But mans end is to asseruile the Gospell to his vile appetites And what greater argument to make a man speake as they please Then to be able to make him to eate as they please It is a sore sub ferula when Leuies portion was not giuen euery one fled to his Land Nehem. 13.10 And this maketh now many a poore Leuite yet weaker then poore engage the Gospel for his dinner And this pride against Gods Inheritance maketh many a Gut-Gospeller sell his owne inheritance to buy Tithes and in end is turned out of both And this for the persons owners of Tithes § VII The Persons payers Abraham in paying Tithes to Melchisedec What persons must pay Tithes was a type of all his seed of his flesh and of his Faith then no flesh can scape The Law commanded all Israel to giue Leui Tithes and Leui himselfe escaped not Melchisedec All for whom Leui serued in the Tabernacle of the Congregation payed to Leui. Therefore all to whom Christ is preached pay Tithes to Christs Ministerie There is but one Dichotomie heere of the whole world either an Israelite or a Leuite An Ecclesiastick or a Laick sauing our Mungerall Gospellers as is said the next head shall make this more cleare § VIII Of what things Tithes are to be payed now Abraham gaue of ALL What things to be Tithed Gen. 14. Iacob Gen. 28. vowed to giue of all that God gaue him The Law in the time of the diuiding of the Land setteth downe chiefely that which commeth by and of the Land viz. Tillage and Pasturage and these Tithes are now commonly called Praediales Decimae Decimae praediales But Iacobs Vow and Abrahams practise teach vs that All includeth as well all trades as all persons for euery man is not a labourer of ground a Cain a keeper of cattell an Abel The Iewish Repub. went no further for that time But the Author to the Hebrewes chap. 7. vers 2. giueth first Of all and vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which most men interpret Spoiles Where I wonder why some learned quarrell it as improper Deut. 20.1 2 3. seeing one point of Leuies office was to encourage in time of warre And seeing of the battels and of the Spoiles 1. Chro. 26.27 they did dedicate to maintaine the house of the Lord. Seeing God is by special name The Lord of Hostes And seeing the Ministery of the Gospell yet serueth much at warre where huge armies haue no calling but the warres shall all bee exempted from Tithes No euery man as hee gaineth he giueth proportionably and these are called Decimae Personales Decimae Personales and such in effect were all Abrahams Tithes for his came after a battell not after Tillage or Cattell And this personall Tithing is cleared by the Apostle saying Let him that is instructed in the Word this wil bring in euery soule hauing goods and receiuing instruction c. And if not so the one halfe if not the best halfe of the world shall go free for all mens goods stand not in Tillage or Pasturage All then must either pay or be payed for for seruants children and such like come not in count but housholders and Foris samiliats as Deut. 26.13 But God hath laid a course of such perpetuall equity and equalitie in all points and for all persons that nothing can go wrong if we go not from it Al persons must pay therefore no emulation for exception of persons All things as their encrease is must pay so Gods seruice shall lacke nothing necessary Once a yeere pay so no man is preuented nor precipitate for the yeeres reuolution giueth a recreation to all and whatsoeuer Trades And albeit Abraham said to the King of Sodom that § IX he would take nothing that was his yet Gods part was neither his nor his Neither had Abraham so much to giue of his owne for the time as of these Kings and Lots goods whom hee deliuered and of these others Kings goods Gen. 14. whom hee ouercame as the Historie beareth Now if hee gaue Tithes for their goods it must bee Spoyle for all came to Abraham Iure belli And if Spoiles then battels and warres are obliged to Tithing If warres and souldiers what trade can escape And though we say Spoiles it excludeth not Abrahams owne estate euen by the text for first Genesis hath Of all secondly Heb 7.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of all things So if Abraham had he gaue But vers 4. Paul addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of purpose as it seemeth to me to oblige warre as well as peace to this most solemne Nuncupation of Tithes to the Eternall Priest-hood of Melchisedec § X On the King of Sodoms words to Abraham Giue mee the persons Sodome a thankefull souldier and take the goods to thy selfe Wee haue two things to marke first it seemeth the King of Sodome had no ill meaning to grudge at Abrahams giuing Tithes to Melchisedec as most men vnderstand him for he had no reason seeing Abraham had restored to him all his people and goods yea euen himselfe to himselfe Chrysostome seemeth to take the place better applying it to the thankfulnesse in the King of Sodome who seeing God worke for him by Abrahams hand what himselfe could not doe and seeing Melchisedec the Priest of Abrahams God seale vp this victory in so powerfull and solemne manner the King then said to Abraham Giue mee the persons and take the goods to thy selfe If we should say heere Ambrose making 318. Vernus of Abraham types of these 318. Bishops of the Councell of Nice stretcheth the text much further That the King of Sodome might serue as a type of the Gentiles called to the Faith of Abraham who were neuer of Abrahams flesh it were no great absurditie for Sodome heere being but Lots neighbour by dwelling is made Lots brother in blessing hee enioyed fully the temporal blessing of the present victorie hee heard effectually the future blessings of Eternal felicitie sealed vp in Abraham and all his posteritie Flesh and Faith and so euen for Sodom himselfe when he should take him to the tents of Sem And should this man who had lost all both soules and substance and againe got all
Seld. cap. 1. §. 2. lin 6. Whereas both Scaliger and Selden will not haue the Priests to receiue any Tithes immediatly from the Laicks Compare Reader consider and then conclude Next pag. 64. lin 7. Scaliger saith Hactenùs detraximus primùm Therumam maiorem de corpore fructuum deinde de residuo decimam secundam Therumam quidem Sacerdotibus decimam vero Leuitis Now this Decimam secundam should haue beene Primam otherwise it is both against Scripture and Scaligers owne account too for in the very next line he calleth them and rightly Theruma magna and Decima prima And Decima secunda is immediatly set downe in his next words De illis to wit that remained after the first Tithe rursus altera decima deducebatur quam vocabant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tob. 1.7 de qua Deut. 14.22 23. Leuit. 27.30 31 32 33. Hanc secundam decimam cum prima confundunt multi c. And so distinguisheth truely betweene the first and second Tithe so that there must be some mistaking or as I thinke misprinting here And yet his places quoted heere for Decima secunda from Deut and Leuit. are not proper for the purpose for that 22. vers of Deut. is vnderstood of the first Tithe Inheritance for the Leuites onely and the 23. vers of the second Tithe for the Feasts as the 28. vers of the third Tithes for the poore So this onely Chap. of Deut. of all the Scripture hath only gathered in one the whole three soâ—ts of Tithes payed by Israel to whatsoeuer ends or vses onely Decima decimarum payed by Leui being heere omitted and supplied in onely one place Num. 18.25 c. all this is cleared in our first Part Chap. 3. § 1 2 3. As to Leuit. 27.30 Also all the Tithe of the Land both Of the seede of the ground and Of the fruite of the trees is the Lords It goeth harsh to a strict this verse to the oâ—ly second Tithe as Scaliger heere bringeth it For all Tithes both the first and the tenth of Tithes were also holy vnto the Lord and câ—mprehended in this verse As for the next vâ—rse touchiâ—g the Redemption of Tithes by adding the fifth paâ—t which Scaligâ—r and Selden Scal pag. 65. lin 3. from the Rabbins apply onely to the redemption of this second Tithe for the Feasts yet I say it must not limit that All the Tithes in the former vers to onely this second Tithe Seld. ca. 2. § 11 And where Mr. Selden out of Iarchi appl eth this Redemption to all those second Tithes which are commanded to be exchanged in money for the longnesse of the iourney Deut. 14 I see no such either coherence or analogie from Scripture nor in the best Interpreters And seeiâ—g wee must in many things renounce the Rabbin so heere if their alledged practises be not cleare in thâ— Precept they must be of the By. For in such cases Non exemplis sed legibus viuendum Humane practise must not encroach vpon Diuine Precept but conforme it selfe to it Scal. pag. 65. 2 medio Aga ne Primam enim decimam That the First Tithe saith Scal was accustomed to be brought vp by the labourers to Ierusalem to the chambers of the Temple we haue a cleare place 2. Chro. 31 5 6 11 12. And at the end of the page he citeth againe Tob 1.7 to proue it But as we at first said in our Treatise this is both without precept and impossible yea dissonant from Scaliger himselfe as before is noted For albeit diuers sorts came by command to Ierusalem as the second Tithe and Decimae decimarum yet it is hard to tye all of all sorts to the Temple out of this place 2. Chron. Againe why shall this place be restrainâ—d to the onely first Tithe seeing in the verses following till the 20. Aaron Priests and the Leuites are made alike partakers of those heapes of Tithes laid vp in these chambers Whereas Scaliger and Selden affirme that Priests had no Tithes from the labourers but only a tenth of the Tithe from the Leuites And if this first Tithe was as they hold onely due to inferiour Leuites why yet must they be carried All to Ierusalem seeing the tenth man of these Leuites abode not at Ierusalem but came and returned by their courses And seeing Scaliger affirmeth pag. 64. lin 1. That the Leuites might dispose of their Tithe in all places euen without Ierusalem and therin differed from the second Tithe that must bee carried and eaten at Ierusalem Why say I must this first Tithe be also caried to Ierusalem Now as for that other place Tob. 1.7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the sonnes of Leui as Scaliger reades it pag. 66.67 First It is yet very hard to astrict it to the inferiour Leuites onely seeing all Priests were also Leuies sonnes Neither is euer that I know Sons of Leui Tribe of Leui or The Leuites restrained in Scripture to the onely Inferiour Leuites without limitation of some circumstances cleare by the Text. The most generall grounds we shall examine till others bring better First it is the custome of Scripture to intitle alike all the children of the twelue Patriarches to their Fathers And touching Leui in particular Num. 1.47 c. Leuites and Tribe of Leui comprehend all But cap. 3.6 The Tribe of Leui is onely meant of the Inferiour Leuites because Aaron and his sons were taken vp for the Priests office before Exod. 28.3 and heere the Leuites are giuen vers 9. to Aaron and his sonnes who were also Leuites heere is a cleare limiting circumstance The like Num. 8. and 18.2.6 But Num. 26.57 The number of the Leuites extendeth to Priests and all vers 58. Families of Leui to Priests and all to Aaron himselfe But as to Tob. 1. which is by Scaliger brought to proue the first Tithe to be carried to Ierusalem I can finde neither * Vatabl. Francos Basil Compl. Steph. ex Pagnino old Latini English trans All reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greeke nor Latine olde or new Translation that readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saue onely the Romane Greeke all the rest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the two Hebrewes one readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but both condemned by all so not to bee trusted And if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then not to onely Inferiour Leuites for Aarons sonnes were all Priests But if by Leuites they vnderstand onely the Inferiours to be the Leauiers admitting also the Priests to bee interessed in Tithes Inheritance with them I moue no dispute for as they were Inferiour so both in Calling and Maintenance they medled with inferiour seruices which also gaue occasion for choosing of Deacons vnder the Gospell Act. 6.3 But if Seldens meaning be M. Seld. c. 2. §. 2. Ren. pag. 454. ad init wholly to frustrate the Priests of any portion in Tithes Inh ritance Then consider what was said of
What calling was hee oâ— here Secular or Ecclesiastick M. Selden saith Both Abraham and Iacob must be Priests also when they paied Tithes True Hee was but not in the proprietie of this action M. Selden cap. 1 §. 2. ad sin but onely as considered apart iust like 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Categories that in climbing are but Species and comming downe Genera yet not so full as so neither this example fitteth better the subord nate Priestes of the Law all of one Order of one Nature But Abraham and Melchisedec were neuer of one Order of Priesthood so though Abraham in one respect a Priest paied Tithes yet here as Priest he paied none At this time he was not so much as a Priest in priuilegiis primogeniturae bâ—ing the tenth in Linea recta from Sem now Melchisedec and so he paied a tenth as a meere secular sprigge of Sems roote For in this Priesthood by Primogeniture was neither Order Ordination nâ—r Subordination Abraham then here went for a Secular a Prince a Patriarch hauing the Promises Blessed and Tithed but not Blessing or Tithing Next I aske whether this solemne and most antient action betweene Melchisedec and Abraham should direct the after comming Law in the like generals or if that perishing Law should rectifie this euerstanding action doubtlesse we say the former Then seeing euen this Priest of God tooke Tithes euen of Abraham the Father and in his loines of all his seede why shall the Priestes vnder the Law be debarred from Tithes comming from Seculares Here then we haue the Priest the first proprietar The Leuites therefore vnder the Law were but as the Priestes seruants in leauing not the sole owners in enioyning And so much for the first sort of Tithes whether they went all to Ierusalem as Scal. affirmeth or were due to onely inferior Leuites as I take M. Selden to say Of the second sort of Tithes for the Feasts we haue no question with Scaliger therefore we follow him to the third sort Scal. Seguitur apud Tobiam It followeth in Tob. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I gaue the 3. Tith to whom it was meete He calleth it a third which is either to be called Of the third yeere For saith he it cannot be called a Third which is one with the First Scal. pag. 67. post med 68. ad med and againe pa 68. So saith Scal This Tith in the 1 2 4. and 5. yeeres was called prima decima but in yeeres 3. and 6. was called The poores Tithes c. For in the 7. yeere was no labouring and so no Tithing I answere Why not both a Third Tith and of the Third yeere The Scripture giueth vs the yeere and why should Scal cite Tobie for proofe of his first and second Tithes and disclaime him in his third Tithes all in one verse Againe what proofe bringeth he to make the first and second Tith both one in the third and sixt yeeres and to diuide them againe in the first second and fifth yeeres For seeing Scal will haue them as they are Leuites portion the first third and fifth yeeres all carried vp to Ierusalem how liued the poore then all these yeeres And seeing hee will haue them for the poore these other two yeeres here M. Selden pleadeth for mee How should the Leuites and Priests haue their liue-lode of these two yeeres And I hold this for a ground that so long as the end remaineth M. Sel cap 2. § 3. p. 14. so long remaine the meanes deuoted to that end But Leuies seruice being the end for which these first Tithes were deuoted admitteth no intermission but is yeerely the same Ergo so must his meanes be yeerely the same If it be replied that Leui is the first enrolled euen in these fiue and six yeeres with the poore I answere first Leuies meanes is here strangely abridged by encroaching of Strangers Fatherlesse and Widowes where hee was at first one and all now is he but the first partner and yet must he abate no point of his seruice whereas God euer supplied all such wants as in that Sabbaticall cessation of labouring the land the sixt yeere yeelded three yeeres encrease but no such matter for this fourth and sixt yeere the partners but not the portion is encreased So Leui may abound strangely in the one but beg strongly in the other for all the beggars are thrust vpon him Secondly Was not Leui also enrolled for a partner in the Festiuall Tithes yet will not Scaliger for this frustrate him of the first Tithes And yet Iunius will making first and second one So haue we of three Tithings a threefold confusion from three learned Authors Iunius the first and second one Scaliger the first and third one Selden the second and third one Which maketh mee rather simply cleaue to the words of the Text then thrust in commentaries for the ouerthrow of it or practise against precept And obserue there is neuer danger in distinguishing these points but euer in confounding For if we distinguish not that Text we shall confound all three At the end of three yeeres thou shalt bring foorth all the Tithe of thine encrease of the same yeere Deut. 14.28 and lay it within thy gates If we giue this word All his largest extent then we must confound all in All all three must be but one which all men denie Therefore we must still distinguish and if so then those three verses Deut 14.22.23 and 28. speake of three diuers Tithings seeing of Tithings Which Iosephus most clearely distinguisheth The English translation readeth all making it a third Tithe each yeere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. One to the Leuites another to the Feasts yeerly a third ioyned to these each third yeer Is not this a faire witnesse for our foresaide Text And against Ioseph and Tobit Selden bringeth but Targum and Talmud Maior vter Another Text Deut 26.12 When thou hast made an end of Tithing all the Tithes of thine encrease the third yeere which is the yeere of Tithing c. Why should this third ye re be termed The yeere of Tithing in the Text since no yeere was without a Tithing safe the Sabbaticall vnlesse a new accrue of Tithes came this yeere aboue the rest as most and best iâ—terâ—râ—ters with Ioseph and Tobit doe hold And seeing it bringeth a new End for Fatherlesse Widdowes Strangers and all Poore why not also a new Tithing There is neither reason nor Analogie to call it The yeere of Tithing because two Tithes in other yeers distinguish dare now confounded much lesse because three new partneâ—s are thrust on one mans portion Laicks on Leuies I confesse I could neuer yet giue a reason why this poore mans Tithe was cast vpon a third yeere seeing they were at all times to bee sustained but for the distinct natures of the Tithes themselues I thinke verily a simple eye may discerne it Mr.
SELDEN THus much for iustifying in generall a Third Tithe each third yeere against Scaliger and M. Selden and that the first and third are not one with Selden against Scaliger Now that the second and third are not one as Selden would haue them So with that reuerence I owe to both and respect all owe to the Truth I will simply set downe my reasons and humbly submit my iudgement c. But seeing M. Selden both by his Title The History of Tithes and by his Preface fully disclaimeth Page 1. it to be written to prooue that Tithes are not doe by the Law of God c. I haue no reason to suspect much lesse to account him as an aduersarie of my Position The most is he may doubt and so doe many of great note but hee who ingenuously doubteth may when God pleaseth finde resolution But seeing he often aduiseth all that shall write De Iure diuino to be well aduised I am among others hereto generally inuited Reuiew pag 452. cap. 2. and it may be specially though tacitely too For saith he Hitherto could I neuer see any Christian that hath fully taught what was considerable in the generall payment of Tithes among the Iewes The Noble and most learned Ios Scaliger did not euery way accurately enough teach it although in a simgle Treatise he purposely vndertooke it How sufficiently among vs others doe that slothfully and ignorantly without his helpe while yet their end is to write of Tithes talke of a third Tithe here and a fourth Tithe and indeed they know not what Tithe Whom M. Selden heere meaneth I know not I confesse my papers haue been long pilgrimes in both Kingdomes and that as the matter is from Scripture so that Method is onely mine owne borrowed of none but the better if it be true So it beâ—ame me well by this Appendix euen to take counsell of M. Selden and tender vp the reasons of my opinion which I haue hitherto done ioyntly to him with Scaliger so far as they handle one point But whereas he taxeth all of Ignorance that haue not vsed Scaligers helpe himselfe letteth vs see in the third Tithe that if we had all vsed Scaligers helpe wee had been all still in Ignorance and it was most true So we had all need one to helpe another and all call for Gods helpe for clearing the Sacred mysteries of his owne Word Now we are to heare M. Seldens opinion in disposing of this third Tithe The Talmud affirmes saith hee Cap. 2. §. 3. ad finem That in the third yeere after the first Tithe they payed the third the poore mans Tithe the second ceased or was not payed or the poore mans Tithe was in stead of the second Tithe I answere as of before Tob and Ioseph said the contrarie Selden Neither can that in Tobit Ibid pag. 15. init touching the payment of the second Tithe euery yeere be otherwise well vnderstood then for Euery of the two yeeres vnlesse that text be wholly contrary to the knowne practise of the Iewes Canons Whether Ios and Tob vnderstood the truth of practise is one question but that they both speake plainely my way is no question Selden So then euery third yeere Page 15. the Leuites at the Temple missed their second Tithe for their Feasts and Loue-dayes the same being charitably and by diuine ordinance spent at home in the gates of the husbandmen Surely I cannot well construe this Section in course of true Diuinitie For if M. Selden meane that the Feasts were yeerely kept and the Leuites yeerely went vp and waited and yet wanted their wages surely it goeth harsh Both serue and sterue at once For they could not haue them at Ierusalem seeing the text and we all agreeth to lay this Tithe vp within the husband-mans gates and the Feasts might onely be kept at Ierusalem But if he meane that the feasts ceased also each third yeere and so Leui stayed abroad attending his portion with the poore from the husbandman this were worse for sure it is These holy Feasts being appointed by God for parts of his owne worship and by so many seuerall precepts yeerely to be performed Ter quotannis and by all the males of Israel at Ierusalem and being p efiguratiue of Christ admitted no intermission of time nor change of Place Ergo not of Maintenance Ibid. Selden Neither doth the second and this poore mans Tithe differ in substance but onely in circumstance But these Circumstances are the Formall substance it selfe as we said before But goe on to the proofes Ibid. Selden The diuision of both is exactly the same and the persons appointed for the eating are vpon the matter so too What is heere meant by Diuision I know nâ—t but sure the Persons shall be found different as followeth Ibid. Sel en For as the Leuites ministring in their course at the Temple were to haue part in the Feasts made of the second so were the Leuites and the poore in the countrey entertained with this of the third yeere But the second Tiâ—he for Feasts touching Person The Husband-man is commanded to eate He and his houshold againe to eate sell and buy and eate Deut. 14.23.26 And the Leuite thou shalt not forsake But the third Tithe the Husbandman is not named to eat but to lay it vp for the Leuite Stranger c. vers 28 and cap. 26. the Husband-man is commanded to giue that Tithe to the Leuite c. So the Persons much differ in both Tithes Ibid. Selden The Place where the bestowing was makes their difference And is not that enough seeing the one must be carried to Ierusalem the other must not but laid vp at home So neithâ—r Place nor Person one But the End is the most powerfull distinction the one for Gods Holy Feastes and Ceremoniall worship the other onely ad Charitatis officia for the poore and the Leuite in all still one Selden This is fully confirmed to me by the Septuagints translation of Deut. 26.12 thus When thou hast â—nded the tithâ—ng of all the fruit of thy ground in the third yeare The second Tithe thou shalt giue to the Leuite and the Stranger c where plainly you see the Poore mans Tithe is expressely called The second Tithe which iustifieth our Diuision And yet may not Tobit halfe a Bible-booke as well yea better iustifie my diuision agreeing with all the Hebrew texts that we haue as the Septuagints a contrarie who are held but translators euen of Tobit Goe the credit by Antiquitie it is Tobits if by personall dignitie Tobits by Scripture Analogie Tobits by Naturall reason Tobits And what reason to call this third Tithe The poore mans Tithe as all doe seeing Leui is the first it is allotted vnto yea which Scaliger will haue all one with Leuies first Tithe Selden Doubtlesse they there in stead of Shenah hamaigsher Ibid. pag. 16. that is The yeere of Tithing as the text is