so in Ier. 31.9 Ephraim is my first-borne Chimki there giues tbe same interpretation and so doth the Targum of Ionathan in that place Sometime the name of first-borne is ascribed to men in Scripture in regard of dignity and honour Psal 89.27 also I will make him my first-borne higher then the Kings of the earth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He calls him first-borne saith Chimki because the first-borne hath dignity ouer the other sonnes which was that priuiledge of birth-right as R. Bechai thinks that Esau sold to Iacob Gen. 25.31 And so the Patriarches and Fathers of the auncient Church are in respect of honour tearmed the Congregation of the first-borne Heb. 12.23 And further on Exod. 13.2 R. Bechai saith that whereas the Lord smote all the first borne in the land of Egypt Exod. 12.29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That it is extended to the eldest in the family if no first-borne were there for he is also called a first borne And in this sense the Patriarches and heads of families whether first-borne or not might be accounted insteed of Priests in their generation and were also Prophets and Kings as Chimki sheweth on Psal 105.15 Touch not mine anointed c. But properly Priests they were not for no man takes this honour to himselfe but he that is called of God as was Aaron Heb. 5.4 and we find but two orders of Priesthood in Scripture the one after Melchisedek the other after Aaron The Priesthood of Aaron was not yet instituted none but only Christ is said to be a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek and to this purpose in the Talmud in Massech Nedarim cap. 3. fol. 32. they write thus concerning Melchisedek Priest of the most high God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. he was a Priest but his seed no Priest To conclude therefore it is lest altogether vncertaine in this passage of the history either what order of Priesthood it was that belonged to the first-borne or what manner of first-borne it was to which the Priesthood was annexed And yet he proceedes further in this kinde saying And Noah Abraham and Iob and the like are accounted by this right Priests of that time For proofe of this Origen lib. 1. in Iob is cited in the margent But Origen doth not there say that these were Priests by that right of primo-geniture but thus Erant nihilominus etiam eâ tempestate sacerdotes necdum adhuc à lege ordinati sed naturali sapientiâ hoc requirente ac perficiente ita sacerdotio functus est Noah c and againe speaking there of Iob's sacrificing for his sons daughters he doth not thence inferre that he was a Priest but proues out of Iob 12.19 that there were Priests in his time and then concludes doubtfully thus Siue ergo memorati sacerdotes siue ipse per seipsum Iob offerebat hostias pro illis secundùm numerum illorum But the Iewes they doe not teach that Iob was a Priest but that he was a Iudge for so Aben-Ezra in the conclusion of his Commentary on Iob at the end of the booke directly expresseth prouing it from cap. 22. ver 9. of that book compared with cap. 29.13.14.15.16 his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. His companions said vnto him thou hast sent widowes away empty And this is a signe that he was a Iudge and therefore he answers I was a father to the poore and I caused the widowes heart to sing for ioy Furthermore to proue Iacob's Priesthood gained by the sale of the birth-right from Esau the Historian saith that Expresse mention is of his exercising this holy function in sacrifices during his fathers life and for this alleadgeth Gen. 31.54 But he hath mistaken and mis-applyed this Text if his owne author Rabbi Iarchi may be beleeued for Iarchi doth not thinke that Iacob did here offer a sacrifice neither doth he interpret the Text in that sense but saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That he slew cattell to make a feast for his brethren and friends that came with Laban And so often the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie aswel mactare as sacrificare to slay as to sacrifice Neither could he with a good conscience invite them to his sacrifice that were out of the couenant being as they were of another religion as that iudicious Diuine Mr Perkins answers our aduersaries alledging and interpreting this Text against their arguments for the sacrifice of the Masse in his Reformed Catholicke Againe all those that offered sacrifices were not Priests as appeares by Samuel 1 Sam. 7.9 For R. Levi Ben Gershom writing on that Text saith plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Samuel was no Priest and so S. Austin retract lib. 2. cap. 43. Chimki here sheweth that Iosuah did sacrifice in Gilgal Iosuah 8.30 and Eliah in Carmel 1 Kings 18. and so did Balaam Numb 23. Iarchi speaks of this and R. Bechai on Numb 18.7 and Deut. 2.8 who saith that before the Tabernacle was set vp the high places were permitted euery man that would offered sacrifice on the top of his house but after the erecting of the Tabernacle they were prohibited so long as the hoste continued in the wildernesse as in Levit. 17.3 ◠Afterward when they passed ouer Iordan for the space of 14 yeares whilst they were imployed in subduing and diuiding the land the vse of the high places was then lawfull which being appointed by the direction of a Prophet a stranger that was no Priest might offer sacrifice in them But when they come to Ierusalem the inheritance mentioned Deut. 12.9 then were they no longer lawfull Therefore the Kings of Iudah are blamed when they destroy'd not the high places And touching the sacrifices of the Patriarchs one thing here may be remembred which in the first Tome of Councells in the second Epistle of Anacletus is recorded in these words Initium sacerdotij Aaron fuit licet Melchisedec prior obtulerit sacrificium post eum Abraham Isaae Iacob sed hi spontanea voluntate non sacerdotali autoritate ista fecerunt Which sheweth that in the iudgment of the ancients though the Patriarches did offer sacrifice yet that was no sufficient argument to proue them to be Priests And if Cain and Abel were therefore both of them to be accounted Priests because both of them did offer sacrifice then was not the Priesthood before Aaron wholly annexed to the first-borne of families for Abel was no first-borne and yet the sacrifice of Abel was accepted and not the sacrifice of Cain But our author hath not yet done with this Treatise of the Priesthood he presseth it further saying Whence obserue by the way that both Abraham and Iacob according to the right of that time must be Priests also when they payde these tithes I maruaile what he intends to make of this obseruation it may be would hence conclude that Priests should therefore pay tithes now aswell as other men or else none
is fully cleared But consider yet a little further what our Author hath deliuered in this 5 Section of his 2. Chap. concerning cattell and the first-borne thereof and the manner of tithing them together with the rod to marke them and then iudge if he hath not here brought his owne Rabbi Iarchi with a rod to ierke himselfe for here is a Tithe that Iarchi and the rest of the Iewes doe shew the Historian hath fowly mistaken and it is neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first or second Tithe And therefore that diuision of his which he makes the ground of his discourse and labours so much to iustifie though he accompt it to be the best will in conclusion proue starke naught for this Tithe of cattell can not be reduced either to the first or second Tithe not the first for that was giuen to the Leuites and was by the Iewes esteemed to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for common vse or prophane as Ramban saith on Deut. 14. and might bee eaten in any place Numb 18.31 But this say the Iewes was not giuen either to Priest or Leuite but was alwayes accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy and might be eaten no-where but at Ierusalem as hath beene proued before both by Iarchi and Bechai on Leuit. 27. and other of the Iewes Againe it is not the second Tithe for that was Deut. 14.23 the Tithe of corne wine and oyle and not the Tithe of beasts that also might be changed into money if the way were long and the place of God's worship far off Deut. 14.24.25 But the Tithe of beasts might not be changed Leuit. 27.33 And if they bought cattell oxe or sheep with the money to be eaten at Ierusalem Deut. 14.26 yet that was not the tenth nor to be accounted the Tithe of the cattell but still the second Tithe and therefore the Iewes doe ordinarily distinguish them in their writings calling the one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the tithe of beasts and the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second tithe So that if there were no other exception to be taken against his best diuision but only this this were sufficient to proue it naught and therefore also by consequent a great part of his Iewish treatise that stands vpon this rotten foundation can not be found But if this will not serue the turne to discouer the weakenes of the History beside the former Tithe mistaken there is yet an other Tithe among the Iewes that the compiler of the History hath neue so much as once spoken of and it comes not within the compasse of his diuision of first and second tithe neither was it for the Priest or Leuite or for the feasts or for the poore but of an other quality differing from these that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the kings Tithe Baal Haturim on Deut. â—8 1 speaking of the cohaerence betwixt this and the precedent Chap. that treateth of the King hath there these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Priests of the Leuites shall haue no part c. this Chapter is annexed to the Chapter of the king because the king he is anointed by the high Priest and he preferres the king in the first place because he is greater then the other c. And againe whereas the Priest Leuite doe take Tithe so also shall the king he shall take the tenth of your sheepe as 1. Samuel 8.17 Whether this manner of collection be warrantable from the Text or not I stand not to examine it sufficeth to shew here by this authority what was the iudgment of the Iewes touching the kings tithe viz that he might take a tenth as well as the Priest or Leuite but yet could not take the Priest's or Leuite's Tithe for the right of the one in taking Tithes did not abridge the right of the other And rhis point is iudiciously ohserued by that worthy religious Knight Sr Iames Sempill in his Booke of Sacriledge for the Gospell chap. 8. sect 3. And so much also is implyed in this â—estimony in other writings of the Iewes answereable hereunto For albeit Calvin on Numb 18 20. doth say vetustissimum fuisse morem ut reges decimarent colligitur ex 1 Sam. 8.15 that it is collected from the 1 Samuel 8. that it was a most ancient custome that kings should take Tithe yet whether that Scripture doth describe a iust king or a tyrant the Iewes teach that the tithe there spoken of is not the Leuites Tithe but an other Tithe after the Leuites Tithe for so are the expresse words of Chimki on that Text 1 Samuel 8.15 he will take the tenth of your seed c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He shall take the tithe of the fields vineyards or of the fruits after the tithe of the Leuites It is true indeed that there is a controuersie among the Rabbines as Chimki here notes concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ius regni the right of the kingdome in the things here mentioned Rabbi Iudah saith that this Text is written only to terrifie them and discourage them from their enterprise in choosing a king and so is Ralbag his opinion in that place Rabbi Iosi saith that whatsoeuer is spokeÌ„ in this chapter of the king the king hath power and right therein and so say others also as appeares in the Talmud Sanhedrim cap. 2. fol. 20. where they discusse this matter at large And hence it is that they expouÌ„d the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 11. translated the manner of the king to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ius the right of the king or the kings due according as the same word is vsed in Deut. 18.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. This shall be the Priests duty from the people and the Childe Paraphrase of Ionathan accords with it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. This shall be the king's Law And as touching that in ver 14. He will take your fields and your vineyards c Chimki further there declareth that their Doctors teach that he might not take the fields and vineyards themselues but the fruits if his seruants stood in need of them when they went to warre And the reason hereof is saith he because it is not said he will take your fields and your vineyards and your best oliue-yards to himselfe but he will giue them to his seruants that is to his warriours that are with him for otherwise all are his seruants Not that he might take to himselfe the body of the fields and vineyards for if so then Ahab might haue taken Naboth's vineyard by the right of the kingdome and Iesebel had not needed to haue vsed all those lewd practises and the shedding of innocent blood Thus farre Chimki in this place And writing againe of the same subiect 1 Kings 21. he confirmes his former exposition and adds an other reason why the text
be offred for a peace-offering he here intends no such matter but saith plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And behold he shall giue the first-borne and the tenth in cattell and the seed of the ground which is the increase the first fruits and the tithe And so also speaking of Iacob's vow Gen. 28.22 saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. It is not in the Law that a man should giue the tithe of his sonnes but the tithe of bullocks and of sheepe and increase In which places he mentioning the Tithe of Cattell with the fruits of the earth and confounding them here together doth plainly imply that he takes them to be holy all alike and in the same manner to be giuen and disposed of For when he saith he shall giue the first-borne and the tenth in Cattell and seede of the ground c. to whom thinke we in his iudgment shall he giue the tenth but to the Priest who also had the first-borne and the first fruits here mentioned for if we should expound the Text as some of the Iewes doe of the second Tithe that was not giuen to any but the owner tooke it himselfe and did eat it at Ierusalem as he did also the Tithe of cattell after the offering of the blood and combustible parts thereof Againe the same Author writing vpon this Text of Leuit. saith further 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. And behold Abraham gaue tithe and also Iacob our father c. To what end should he vse these words applying them to this Text except he thought that such Tithes were here meant as Abraham and Iacob payde before the Law and that they were also to be payde in such manner as they formerly payde them which was in those times to the Priest as is plaine in Abraham Gen. 13. for he gaue Melchisedek tithe of all say the Iewes because he was the Priest so the glosse of Iarchi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he was the Priest as the glosse of the Iewes hath it and so in this place of Leuit. here is a declaration of God's right in tithes that they are holy to him and afterward in Numb 18. he sheweth that he giues them generally to the Leuites vnder which name of Leuites the Priests are also comprehended For we haue formerly shewed that euery Priest is a Leuite though euery Leuite be not a Priest The Answer to the Censure THe two maine points in controversie between the Author and Mr Selden are not rightly propounded for I. The question is not whether the first-borne of other vncleane cattell as well as of asses were not to be redeemed by paying a Lambe vnto the Priest for Mr Selden in his History makes no mention at all of the Asse but the question is whether the first-borne of vncleane beastes were payde to the Priest in money with a fift part added for this affirmatiuely is M. Selden's position set downe without any proofe against which the Author thus reasoneth 1 The first-borne of the Asse which was an vncleane beast was not to be payd to the Priest in money but was to be redeemed with a Lambe Exod 15.13 34.20 2 The Iewes teach that no first-borne of any vncleane beast was payde at all but only of the Asse which is evidently prooved by their testimonies at large Whereas therefore the Moderator heere between Mr Selden and the Author holdeth that vnder the name of the Asse are comprehended by a Synechdoche all other beasts vncleane for sacrifice giuing his reasons to confirme it admit without any further examination that this were true it nothing helps Mr Selden but more strongly opposeth his assertion for if not only the first-borne of the Asse was to be redeemed with a Lambe but also the first of all other vncleane beastes then was not the first-borne of vncleane beastes paide to the Priest in money with a fift part added II. The other question likewise is not so as it is here by the Moderator expressed viz. whether tithe were to be paide to the Levite of the increase of Cattell But whether it were paide vnto him in the Iewish manner of tithing not what is required in regarde of precept but what was performed in regard of practise for this is that which the Historian professeth to teach by the very title of his booke calling it the History of tithes that is the practise of payment of them And so in this second chap. his inscription is in the beginning How among the Iewes tithes were paide or thought due Now it is evidently proued by such writings of the Iewes as he himselfe saith are testimonies beyond exception for the practise or Historicall part that their practise for the tithing of Cattell is contrary to that which he hath deliuered If it be said that the expositions of the Iewes and their practise here is not agreeable to Scripture as the Moderator seemes to determine To this I answere that the same thing likewise may be said of divers other pointes taught in his History and vrged from the authority of the Iewes concerning first fruits Therumahs and tithes which cannot be iustified by Scripture as I haue before declared If therefore now leaving his former hold he will disclaime and forsake his Rabbines for they here forsake him and cleaue only to the Scripture for the right of tithing omitting the Iewish practise then I make no doubt but we shall quickly shake hands for though the tithe of Cattell was not paide to the Levite according to the practise of the Iewes yet I hold with the Moderator that it ought to be paide vnto him according to the precepts of the Scripture and yet that text of Scripture Levit. 27 32. which they alledge doth not prooue it neither is it apparent by the 30 verse which Mr Selden for an other purpose in his History pag. 13. following Scaliger and some of the Iewes doth apply only to the second tithe contrary to the iudgment of this Moderator and contrary also to the true meaning of the Scripture as hath been shewed already True it is that in that text of Levit. 27. there is expressed a declaration of God's right in tithes and that the tithes are his reserved portion but the donation of them to the Levits is else-where confirmed as in Numb 18.21 For behold I haue giuen the Children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance c. from whence I cōclude that if all the tenth were giuē to Levi then no doubt but the tenth of their Cattell as well as any other and whatsoeuer the Iewes write to the contrary it is but frivolous for albeit the tithe of Cattell as they argue be not expresly named in the number of the 24 giftes belonging to the Priesthood which also may be avouched of many other particulars yet without any exception it is plainly comprehended vnder the generall grant of the tithes to Levi which to any reasonable iudgment is sufficient
tithe was giuen to the sonnes of Aaron that is to the Priests and namely in the time of Ezra and that by the generall consent and testimony of the Iewes neither was that constitution euer after reversed I demaund then to whom the Levites did pay their decimas decimarum when as the first tithe it selfe out of the which they were taken was then giuen immediatly to the Priests We read indeed Num. 18.28 that the Levites were commanded to giue the tenth of their tithe the Lords heaue offering to Aaron the Priest But concerning the sense and meaning of this text the Iewes dispute and differ in the Talmud Sanhedrin cap. 11. fol. 90. Rabbi Iochanan argues from hence the certainty of the resurrection and because Aaron did not liue to enter into the land of Israel and receiue the heaue offering therfore saith he this teacheth that he shall liue heareafter and receiue it after the resurrection Rabbi Ismael he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i The heaue offering was giuen to Aaron to signifie that as he was partaker so also his sonns were partakers of it after him Now the sonnes of Aaron were high Priests as well as Priests Therfore where it is added But these considerations can only be where the knowledge of fact preceedes What certaine knowledge of fact heerein hath he shewed vs or how can there be any such certainty found among the Iewes when as the greatest of their Doctors differ in iudgment for the exposition of this text which is the ground of the fact heere mentioned some of them appropriating the heaue offering of the tithe personally to Aaron himselfe some to his sons successors in the high Priest-hood and some to the inferior Priests Therfore in these matters we haue from them much variety but litle certainty yet still more proofe for the divine right of tithes then either hath or can be shewed to the contrary For since the Iewes teach vs as hath beene declared that the tithe is God's part allotted and paide euer to the Priest and that the Patriarkes Abraham Isaac and Iacob and the rest paide tithes before the Law and that they were also paide in the time of Iob and that the Priest after the order of Melchisedek hath right to take tithes and that the first tithe or tithe inheritance must neuer cease By these and such like conclusions I take it they affoorde more arguments for confirmation of the divine right of tithes then either hath as yet from them or can be shewed against it The last of his Hebrew sentences wherein also I will ioyne with him and conclude is set downe toward the end of the 2d chap. of his Review that is That among their Aphorismes both diuine and morall they tell vs that as the Masoreth is the defence of the Law so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Meighsheroth seag Leaighsher that is tithes payd are the defence of riches for which he quoteth in the margent Pirke Auoth cap. 3. And in the same place such an other sentence presently followes which if this Author had well observed I perswade my selfe his History had neuer come to light and that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. silence is the hedge or defence of wisdome But it is well yet that now in the end not consonant to his former discourse he acknowledgeth this that is spoken of tithes to be a divine and morall Aphorisme and surely not only this but also many other such like morall and divine Aphorismes are vttered by the Iewes both in their Comments on the holy text and also in the Talmud which promise a blessing to them that duely pay their tithes and a curse to those that doe withhold them That worthy learned Divine Master Hooker in his fift booke of Ecclesiasticall policy fol 428. alleadging this that the Iewes were accustomed to name their tithes the hedge of their riches hath there a further observation saying that an hedge doth onely fence and preserue that which is contained whereas their tithes and offerings did more because they procured increase of the heape out of which they were taken And for this he citeth Malach. 3. Bring yee all the tithes into the store-house that there may be meat in my house deale truly defraud not God of his due but bring all and prooue if I will not open vnto you the windowes of heaven and powre downe vpon you an vnmesurable blessing On which wordes Rabbi Bechai writing on Deut. 26. saith Although it be vnlawfull to proue or tempt the Lord for a man must not say I will performe such a commandement to the end I may prosper in riches for it is writen Deut. 6.16 yee shall not tempt the Lord your God c yet saith he heere and the Iewes also in Massech Tagnanith cap. 1. fol. 9. There is an exception for paiment of tithes and workes of mercy in this text of Malach. 3. and that other Proverb 3.9 Honor the Lord with thy substance c where Iarchi and Ralbag vnderstand it to be spoken of tithes and Bechai also workes of charity to the poore and for proofe of a blessing to the performance of these precepts Ralbag applieth that in 2. Chron. 31.10 Since the people began to bring the offering into the house of the Lord we haue eaten and haue beene satisfied and there is left in abundance for the Lord hath blessed his people and this abundance that is left so on Deut 14.22 they write thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Pay tithes that thou maist be rich pay tithes that thou come not to poverty This is recorded by Ramban and Bechai and others and in divers places in the Talmud as Massech Sabuth cap. 16. fol. 119. Tagnanith cap. 1. fol. 9. on Num. 5.10 Iarchi thus glosseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The man that giues to the Priest the giftes that are fit for him he shall haue riches in abundance and so it is in Massech Beracoth fol. 63. And Baal Haturim on Deut. 12.19 Take heed thou forsake not the Levite he ioynes to that ver 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. When God shall enlarge thy border and to signifie that a mans gift doth enlarge him Prov. 18.16 Meaning a gift to the Priest Deut. 16.4 And thou shalt reioyce in thy feast thou and thy sonne and thy daughter and thy maide and the Leuite and the stranger and the fatherlesse and the widow that are within thy gates Here saith Iarchi and Bechai on Gen. 37.1 The Leuite the stranger the fatherlesse and the widow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. foure that belong to me answerable to foure that belong to thee Thy sonne thy daughter thy man thy maides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thou comfort those that are mine I will comfort those that are thine Deut. 26.11 And thou shalt reioyce in euery good thing which the Lord thy God hath giuen thee To this is annexed saith Baal Haturim when thou hast made an end of tithing ver 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉