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
interprets But here he leaues out these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. because he was the Priest the whole senteÌ„ce being thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is And Abraham gaue him tithe of all that he had because he was the Priest which later clause containes a reason why Abraham payde the Tithes to Melchisedek namely because he was the Priest implying thereby both a right in Melchisedek to receiue them and a duty in Abraham to pay them and so saith R. Bechai on that text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. According to the opinion of our Ancestors he was a Priest indeed and therefore Abraham gaue him the Tithe This is also further confirmed by the like testimony of Ramban Deut. 14.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And hee was the Priest of the most high God To shew that Abraham would not giue the Tithe to the Priest of strange gods but because he knew him that he was the Priest of the most high God therefore hee gaue him the tithe for the honor of God And hereby was signified to Abraham that there should be the house of God and thither his posterity should bring the tithe the therumahs or oblations and that there they blesse the Lord. Of what credit this Ramban is Mercer on Genesis in the beginning pag. 3. tells vs in these wordes R. Mose Ben Nachman quem Ramban per Nun in fine appellant qui Moses Gerundensis cum alius R. Mose ben Maimon qui Rambam per Mem in fine vocatur sit qui R. Moses Aegyptius dicitur vterque vir insignis etsi Iudaei vt caeteri sint cum iudicio legendi Now this Testimony of Ramban implyes in it these things 1 That Abraham was to pay tithe to some one Priest or other 2 That not onely the Priests of the true God but also the Priests of strange gods among the Gentiles did in those times receiue Tithes 3 That Abraham payde the Tithes to the honour of God 4 That this payment was a president and type of the future payment of his posterity 5 That the payment of Tithes was annexed to the place of God's worship Aben Ezra on this Text and also on Gen. 28. ver 22. writes in a manner to the same effect and on Gen. 35.1 he saith of Iacob 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And in Bethel he performed his vow and gaue the Tithe of his substance for the honour of God to him that was in that generation for to receiue it That is to the Priest for in the Apostles language Heb. 7. a Priest and a receiuer of Tithes are aequipollents Insteed of saying Men that die are Priests he saith Men that die receiue Tithes Insteed of saying He that liues is a Priest he saith He that liues takes tithes as if in his iudgment Tithes and Priesthood were inseparable And therefore the Emphasis of the phrase he vseth Heb. 7.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Melchisedek tithed Abraham shewes both that he had authority to take Tithes and seemes also to subiect Abraham to a necessity of being tithed which is the same that Iarchi meanes in the testimony before cited saying that Abraham payde him tithe of all that he had because he was the Priest I haue the rather insisted vpon this that the Historian hath left out and excluded the Priest from receiuing Tithes because it seemes he doth it of set purpose for otherwise to what end doth he set downe those words in the beginning And gaue him tithe of all in that vncertaine manner not following any translation but leauing it doubtfull who should here be the giuer or for what cause doth he tell vs afterward That were it not for the holy exposition in that Epistle to the Hebrewes the relation in Genesis might as well bee vnderstood that on the other side Melchisedek as a bounteous Ancestor had giuen to Abraham the tenth part of his estate the text indeed being both in the Hebrew and Septuagints so that no name immediatly preceding the mention of the gift it sufficiently thence appeares not who was the giuer c. This supposition is somewhat strange to which I may answere both for the thing suâ—posed and the consequent thereof that if it were 〈◊〉 â—â—lse we might with him conceiue it to be true 〈…〉 Apostle doth assure vs that it is false to what end therefore is it related for though he goe about to iustifie this assertion in his Review pag. 450. by the authority of Fathers acknowledge no fault at al to be in it yet how can this satisfie is it not a fault to call in question or make a doubt of that which the holy Scripture hath put out of doubt is it not a fault to oppose the imagination of mans braine against the determination of God's truth As for the testimony of S. Hierome writing not his owne but the Iewes opinion and other Fathers here alleadged it hath already bin sufficiently answered by others and therefore both in this and many things else my labour as it hath bin prevented so it may very well bee spared for I come but to gleane after others reaping Neither will I here recite the expositions of the Iewes against this conceit who generally vnderstand the Text according to the true interpretation thereof in the Epistle to the Hebrewes But suppose for argument sake that the holy Apostle had not fully cleared this truth yet that which the Historian would hereupon inferre will not follow viz That Melchisedek as a bounteous Ancestor had given to Abraham the tenth part of his estate or as a portion to one of his posterity as hee speakes in his Review but that he gaue the tenth or tithe to Abraham as a duty still belonging to the Priest for in that sense doe those Iewes take it which were the first authors of this fancie that Melchisedek payd tithe to Abraham for they write that the Priesthood was translated from Melchisedek to Abraham because that Melchisedek vsed a preposterous order in his blessing in that he first blessed Abraham and after blessed God as it were preferring the seruant before the Master as R. Bechai and Chaskuni and others relate on Gen. 14.20 And to this they apply that in Psal 110.4 Thou art a Priest for euer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is because of the word that Melchisedek did speake as Rabbi Chimki there interprets it and Iarchi concerning Abraham which also they haue from the Talmud in Massech Nedarim cap. 3. fol. 32. But this is not generally receiued for Aben-Ezra on Gen. 14 reiects it saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Melchisedek spake as was fitting and did well in that he blessed Abraham first because he voluntarily offered himselfe to saue those that were led captiue and afterward he said and blessed be God that did helpe him and gaue his enemies into his hand therefore he interprets those words in the Psalme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. according to the order or custome or else saith
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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉